Where Did Our Republic Go??

[Foxfyre]

Alexander Hamilton was perhaps America's first prominent 'progressive' and history testifies to his economic genius. After reading and considering his writings, most especially in the Federalist papers, I think he was the one Founder who did not subscribe to the thesis of the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of the Republic on a concept of God given unalienable rights that guided the construction of the Constitution. Like all Progressives he supported the concept of a 'good king' who would force the people to form a righteous society. He did not trust the people to govern themselves.

Had Hamilton had his way, the United States would have formed just another quasi European nation and there would have never been American exceptionalism that made it the greatest, most free, most prosperous, most innovative, and most benevolent nation the world has ever known.

It breaks my heart that the "Hamiltonians" are gradually taking over the government and society and we are losing that exceptionalism and the freedom it offered drip by drip. And I despair that there is time to re-educate the indoctrinated and brainwashed and turn it around before it is too late. But I will keep trying.

 

[JDzBrain]

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.

YES...IT DOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why don't you describe a process whereby the government...ANY government can do ANY of those things without creating an infrastructure or paying others to do so.

Does declaring a war with no army to fight it make sense? Does being directed to coin money without the mechanisms to stamp them out make sense? How about being directed to establish postal routs and deliver the mail without the funding to build roads and pay people to deliver it?

Congress can't even print the Uniform Code of Conduct manual with out the funding to make it happen. HELL...they can't even print the legislation for those regulations to read it among themselves without public funding!

CRAP man, THAT...is how Ben Franklin made his living!

Dude...that is what I'm talking about. A little common sense can go a LONG way!

 

[Dragon]

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.

YES...IT DOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why don't you describe a process whereby the government...ANY government can do ANY of those things without creating an infrastructure or paying others to do so.

Does declaring a war with no army to fight it make sense? Does being directed to coin money without the mechanisms to stamp them out make sense? How about being directed to establish postal routs and deliver the mail without the funding to build roads and pay people to deliver it?

Excuse me, but you're committing an error of categorization. I am saying, "the power to do A is not SUFFICIENT FOR the power to to B." You are coming back saying, in effect, "the power to do A is NECESSARY FOR the power to to B."

Necessary and sufficient are not the same thing. Yes, Congress must tax and spend in order to exert any of its other powers, but I wasn't saying anything to the contrary. I was saying, rather, that it must do something MORE THAN -- or, you could say, IN ADDITION TO -- taxing and spending in order to exert those powers.

Congress cannot build an army WITHOUT spending money, but neither can Congress build an army if spending money is ALL that it does.

Clear now?

 

[JDzBrain]

The Constitution does NOT say...in addition to. It says the Congress SHALL have the power do these 3 things and have the power to tax to do them. And then it defines EXACTLY how and what those things are to be done.

You can NOT separate out one thing from the other...OR as some activist judges have done...decided the Constitution doesn't say what it says or that common sense is suspended.

These men did not waste words on the superfluous. They would NOT say defend this nation and then describe how to do it and then say provide for the general welfare and just leave the definition of what was the general welfare up to interpretation.

The ONLY parts of it left up to interpretation by Congress is how many roads are required for mail delivery, how many troops are required or is treason still a Capitol offense in the Unified Code given the social mores of the day.

Oh, and it's perfectly clear. I'm being asked to suspend common sense.

 

[Dragon]

The Constitution does NOT say...in addition to. It says the Congress SHALL have the power do these 3 things and have the power to tax to do them. And then it defines EXACTLY how and what those things are to be done.

You can NOT separate out one thing from the other..

I'm sorry, but there's no evidence in the document to support that statement. It's clear from the context that the enumerated powers are all supposed to be separate and independent. The power to coin money is not a function of the power to declare war or the power to establish post offices or the power to govern the nation's capital or the power to punish counterfeiting. Nor is there any evidence in the way the section is set up that the first enumerated power (to tax) is any different from all the others: a separate power in itself, not dependent on or limited by the others.

Are you familiar with the Confederate Constitution? You probably know that it was almost a perfect copy of the U.S. Constitution except for a few changes, like a single 6-year term for the president and a right to property in slaves. One of the changes they did make was the language equivalent to the tax and spend clause, which reads as follows:

"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"

See the difference? It would have been very simple and easy for the delegates to the Constitutional Convention to make our own document say much the same, but they didn't. Why not? Because enough of them didn't want to, obviously. Remember, these were in some cases highly literate and verbally capable men. Two of them, Madison and Hamilton, were authors of the Federalist Papers. So they had the ability to express themselves precisely and it's most unlikely this is a case of sloppy language.

I believe the clause says exactly what the framers intended it to say. And it says that Congress may tax (and by implication, spend) "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." And the plain meaning of that is that they can tax and spend on a very broad range of things, essentially anything that doesn't 1) benefit one state at the expense of others, 2) implicitly create a regulatory power that Congress is not otherwise authorized to have, or 3) violate some explicit ban on government action.

 

[JDzBrain]

Ok, let's approach this a different way.

Article I, Section 2...titled The House...the first clause says, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

Ok? That is the first clause and defines the purpose of Section 2, which is to establish the body we call the House of Representatives and says that if they meet the qualifications for a state legislature they can run and be chosen every 2 years. Right?

Now does that mean that after that statement, every other part of the Section is individual and independent from that clause and Congress is free to alter or interpret that clause to fit their needs or desires?

OR...when it says, "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." in the next clause, is that clause a clarification for the qualification for a Representative...BEYOND being qualified for the state electors?

Or in the 3rd clause when it SPECIFICALLY states the number of representatives each of the original states can have, was that just a suggestion or a clear definition of how they intended apportioning of those Representatives was to occur?

How about the next clause when it says, "When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies." Does that not REALLY apply to representatives since the first clause says they should be elected every 2 years?

Can one exist without the other?

You are saying YES...they are independent, when in fact they are part and parcel. As are the clauses in the Powers of Congress section.

It's the SAME THING!

There was no fuzzy logic applied to how and why the Constitution was written the way it was. These men were practical and pragmatic and the Constitution was written with INTENT!

They did NOT just suddenly abandon logic when they reached the Powers of Congress!

 

[Dragon]

I am saying nothing about any part of the Constitution except the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. Each power is presented as a separate authorization of the federal government. Specifically, Congress may:

1. Levy taxes;
2. Borrow money;
3. Regulate international and interstate commerce;
4. Coin money and set standards of weights and measures;
5. Punish counterfeiting;
6. Establish post offices and post roads;
7. Authorize patents and trademarks;
8. Set up courts;
9. Punish piracy and international crimes;
10. Declare war;
11. Raise and support armies;
12. Raise and maintain a navy;
13. Make rules governing naval and land forces;
14. Call up and federalize the militia;
15. Set rules governing the militia;
16. Govern the nation's capital directly; and
17. Make all laws "necessary and proper" for executing its other powers.

Except for number 17, which obviously and logically depends on the other powers, each one here is a separate item. None of them is set apart from the others. There is simply nothing in the language that says the power to tax and spend is limited to carrying out the other powers (as there IS such language impacting the "necessary and proper" clause). Instead, the language says that the power to tax and spend is limited to paying the debts and providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. They key words there being "common" and "general," as states are supposed to provide for their own local defense and welfare, but the federal government is to handle threats to the nation as a whole and activities benefiting it as a whole.

I understand why you might find this problematical, but let that show you that the Constitution isn't the libertarian document you might have supposed.

 

[JDzBrain]

You just proved my point. Section 8 is written EXACTLY like section 2, which is written like section 1 which is written just like every other article and section in the Constitution!

You do NOT get to rewrite the Constitution or take parts out and mix and match. The founders did NOT simply abandon the structure they established for writing the Constitution in the first 7 sections when they got the the 8th. And by pointing out that the 17th thing on your list is dependent on the others, you have proven the point.

NOTHING in the sections of the Articles was independent from the others and none of the sections or articles deviated from the structure they establish in the first one.

If they had been intended to be...there would have been NO NEED to break it up into articles and sections. Just a freakin list like you made out.

Unless you believe the founders...the greatest collection of minds in one place at one time in the history of man...were too stupid to do in 2 years what you did in 15 minutes!?

Common sense please!

Each section begins with a clause that is a statement of intent and IF further direction was necessary...additional clause were added for CLARITY!

It IS that simple!

 

[Dragon]

LOL no, I haven't proven your point, and I am not the one trying to rewrite the document.

Article I, Section 2 isn't written the same as Section 8. Section 2 is a description of how Representatives are to be elected and qualifications for the office. Section 8 is a list of enumerated powers. Section 2 is written in paragraph form, while Section 8 is for all purposes a bullet list (without the bullets).

 

[Foxfyre]

He isn't rewriting anything, Dragon, but the points you guys are debating has been part of the debate between Constitutional scholars, beginning with Madison and Hamilton, during the writing of and ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

The specific tax clause is:

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 Founders determined this clause was necessary becauses under the Articles of Confederation the federal government had no authority to levy and collect taxes. It requisitioned funding from the states who either coughed up the money requisitioned or didn't. The funding was therefore so uneven it was impossible to budget and sometimes difficult to pay the bills.

Subsequently, once Congress had the power to collect taxes necessary to operate the federal government, almost all bones of contention re federal taxes was related to the general welfare 'clause'--not really a clause but more of a specified authorized expense.

James Madison, who strongly supported the Constitution and its ratification, looked at the general welfare clause as spending must be tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military. The "general welfare" was not a specific power of Congress but simply a qualification of what taxes can be used for.''\

Alexander Hamilton, less passionate about the Constitution and its limitations on government powers, wanted a broader interpretation of 'general welfare'. He wanted the federal government to aid agriculture and education and commerce though even he rejected the idea of targeted benevolence. He thought such aid should be evenly distributed and not benefit any part of the country or any group more than any other.

Every U.S. President, up to FDR, has gone with the Madison concept of 'general welfare' and an understanding that there is nothing in the Constitution allowing the federal government to dispense charity or aid or benevolence to anybody.

Since FDR, presidents have increasingly gone with the Hamiltonian model but have thoroughly trashed all the restraints once they became drunk with power to use the people's money to increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and fortunes.

It is THAT which is chipping away at our Republic that is already almost unrecognizable from the freedom and unalienable rights the Founders intended for us and which we will lose if we do not reverse that trend.

 

[Greenbeard]

Every U.S. President, up to FDR, has gone with the Madison concept of 'general welfare' and an understanding that there is nothing in the Constitution allowing the federal government to dispense charity or aid or benevolence to anybody.

Every one?

Freedmen's Bureau - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[idb]

Unfortunately only 2 Republicans would actually try to roll back the Progressive Jihad: Palin and Paul; she's not running and the RNC would never let him win

You could add Bachmann to that list too, I think, and maybe one or two others.

What we need is a Ron Paul with his fiscal and mind-our-own-business sense without the looney tunes factor and with Palin and Bachmann's appreciation for basic American traditional values/social contract below the federal level and with a Reaganesque leadership skill set so that people will be inspired to follow.

Speaking of followers...did you see this:
Danica Patrick: “I leave it up to the government to make good decisions for Americans.”

Did Americans always think this way...
Where have all the flowers gone?

Well, what greater authority do you need?
Your argument is hereby proven beyond dispute.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You could add Bachmann to that list too, I think, and maybe one or two others.

What we need is a Ron Paul with his fiscal and mind-our-own-business sense without the looney tunes factor and with Palin and Bachmann's appreciation for basic American traditional values/social contract below the federal level and with a Reaganesque leadership skill set so that people will be inspired to follow.

Speaking of followers...did you see this:
Danica Patrick: “I leave it up to the government to make good decisions for Americans.”

Did Americans always think this way...
Where have all the flowers gone?

Well, what greater authority do you need?
Your argument is hereby proven beyond dispute.

You have a point, BVD's ....beside the one on your head?

 

[idb]

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.

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.

You dismiss communism as a theory that is unworkable due to the impossibility of controlling human nature, but are unwilling to accept that democracy might have any shortcomings for the same reason?

 

[idb]

Speaking of followers...did you see this:
Danica Patrick: “I leave it up to the government to make good decisions for Americans.”

Did Americans always think this way...
Where have all the flowers gone?

Well, what greater authority do you need?
Your argument is hereby proven beyond dispute.

You have a point, BVD's ....beside the one on your head?

It speaks for itself, couldn't you find a cut-and-paste retort?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

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.

You dismiss communism as a theory that is unworkable due to the impossibility of controlling human nature, but are unwilling to accept that democracy might have any shortcomings for the same reason?

"You dismiss communism blah blah blah...."

When I read your post I shook my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth….

Applying your entire compliment of brain cells,
...and delving deeply into your knowledge of history,
you decided to make the case that the evidence from those nations that have tried democracy is equivalent to those that have wandered down the paths of communism????


Well, at least your number of brain cells has reached a manageable number....


Speaking of numbers, did the slaughter of over one hundred million human beings by the forces of communism in the last century enter into your calculations to any extent?


Now, since education hasn't taken, the next experiment on the agenda would be for you to jump in the lake to see if that point on your head writes underwater.

 

[Foxfyre]

Every U.S. President, up to FDR, has gone with the Madison concept of 'general welfare' and an understanding that there is nothing in the Constitution allowing the federal government to dispense charity or aid or benevolence to anybody.

Every one?

Freedmen's Bureau - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry to be so long responding to this because it is an excellent addition to the debate. (I got sidetracked by another matter.)

In the wake of the Civil War and with slavery outlawed, we suddenly had tens of thousands of slaves thrown off the reservations with no visible means of support and, in a war ravaged South, few people willing or able to hire them. As the refugees began streaming north, the North became increasingly alarmed. Numerous private charities sprang up to help feed, clothe, and house people, but that wasn't sufficiently stemming the flow of refugees into the northern states who didn't want them. So the Freedmen's Bureau was established within the Department of War (defense) which is an important distinction. It was intended to be a temporary agency and was the same kind of reparations the federal government would expect to make to anybody when a federal action compromises a people's property or livelihood. In other words, the federal government was addressing a dilemma that it had created itself and saw that as a responsibility of the military as it had been a military action creating the problem.

The limited temporary budget provided immediate emergency relief with most of the budget designated to offer small loans to help people to get a new start. The loans were expected to be paid back. Only a small fraction of the designated funds were ever loaned out. I'm not sure if most of those were in fact paid back.

All this is to say that this was a very different thing that the government presuming to dispense charity to folks just because they are needy or, most especially, just to win their gratitude and vote.

 

[Greenbeard]

All this is to say that this was a very different thing that the government presuming to dispense charity to folks just because they are needy or, most especially, just to win their gratitude and vote.

I don't recall there being a space left for your perceptions of politicians' motivations in the statement "there is nothing in the Constitution allowing the federal government to dispense charity or aid or benevolence to anybody."

 

[Foxfyre]

All this is to say that this was a very different thing that the government presuming to dispense charity to folks just because they are needy or, most especially, just to win their gratitude and vote.

I don't recall there being a space left for your perceptions of politicians' motivations in the statement "there is nothing in the Constitution allowing the federal government to dispense charity or aid or benevolence to anybody."

The distinction is the diference between 'charity/benevolence' and 'reparations' don't you think? Do you not see a difference between these two things?

 

[Greenbeard]

What I see is the tacit acknowledgement that social welfare spending is not in violation of the Constitution, as long as it meets whatever arbitrary philosophical test you decide to put it to.

The existence of a federal agency dispensing education, food, housing, health care, etc in the mid-19th century puts to rest the notion that prior to FDR there was some universal "understanding that there is nothing in the Constitution allowing the federal government to dispense charity or aid or benevolence to anybody." Your own posts in this thread put to rest any notion that you personally hold such a rigid understanding of the federal government's authority to tax and spend.

I'm not particularly interested in trying to parse out the details of when you feel like using the general welfare clause to justify social spending. I'm simply pointing out that 1) your language suggests an ideological rigidity that you clearly don't exhibit, and 2) that American politicians prior to 1933 also failed to adhere to the 'consensus' you're imagining.