FDR's Economic Bill of Rights: A Good or Bad Idea?

[Publius1787]

...wealth is not creates by creating but created by holding wealth...

Having trouble following your thinking, but if we're talking monetary wealth --net worth-- what it amounts to is assets minus debts, so we're talking making assets (say, building houses creating a business) and paying off debts. This is where the hard work comes in.

Almost all wealth is created by just hard work --but hey, hard work is fun!

Yeah, it caught my attention as well.

 

[Publius1787]

...wealth is not creates by creating but created by holding wealth...

Having trouble following your thinking, but if we're talking monetary wealth --net worth-- what it amounts to is assets minus debts, so we're talking making assets (say, building houses creating a business) and paying off debts. This is where the hard work comes in.

Almost all wealth is created by just hard work --but hey, hard work is fun!

Sorry. Blame it on spellcheck and an iPad keyboard.

My point is wealth was once created by creating things. Now, wealth is created by making a killing in the market. Which is more sustainable, accessible and noble?

What do you think that money in the market does?

 

[expat_panama]

...wealth is created by making a killing in the market...

Ah. Personally I'm unconvinced that those with hundreds of $milllions from say running touchdowns or staring in movies etc. have ever had to kill someone in a supermarket, but hey we're all free to believe what we want to.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is more than one reason Russia, China, N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cuba etc. are totalitarian. To attribute the ideas of Marx to anyone of these authoritarian nations is a far reach, as well as ignorance of his ideas. The utopian ideas Marx wrote of were unrealistic and likely would only be successful in an agrarian society where many of the inhabitants were related, competition was unnecessary for there were few unfulfilled needs, and little or no outside influence existed. In today's world such a place does not exist and human nature makes such cooperation most unlikely.

Notice how many nations call themselves "Democratic" or "People Republics" and yet by law restrict voting by allowing only one party to participate - gee, wasn't Tom Delay hoping to establish a one party majority and isn't the GOP hoping to restrict voting by putting in roadblocks into the law (all passed by Republican Majorities in State Legislatures and signed by GOP Governors)?

BTW, I suggest those who believe in democratic- republican governance and buy what the new conservative movement does (not says) see where the propaganda each of you believe fits within the ideas of our founders and that expressed in the Constitution. Read the Preamble as a Mission/Vision Statement without biases.

Never attributed anything to Marx. Huh?
Republicans aren't going to stop anyone from voting. Bullshit
Read the last 4 paragraphs of Federalist 51 bred from Anti-Federalist criticisms whereas Madison essentially stated that the federal government wont be able to go beyond it's enumerated powers under the guise of "general welfare." Fallacy of the Appeal to Authority.

It wasn't until FDR, and after the threat of packing the courts, did the SCOTUS reject Federalist no 41.

Explain your last comment in detail with probative evidence.

Are you denying FDR threatened to pack the court to get the ruling he demanded?

 

[Toro]

Bad idea.

Nobody has a "right" to the labors of others.

 

[Nosmo King]

Bad idea.

Nobody has a "right" to the labors of others.

Please cite in FDR's Rights precisely where it says what you say it says.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Never attributed anything to Marx. Huh?
Republicans aren't going to stop anyone from voting. Bullshit
Read the last 4 paragraphs of Federalist 51 bred from Anti-Federalist criticisms whereas Madison essentially stated that the federal government wont be able to go beyond it's enumerated powers under the guise of "general welfare." Fallacy of the Appeal to Authority.

It wasn't until FDR, and after the threat of packing the courts, did the SCOTUS reject Federalist no 41.

Explain your last comment in detail with probative evidence.

1. I did not mention Marx
2. You cannot point to anything Republicans have done that will effectively prevent voting.

3. Pointing to the father of the Constitution is indeed, an appeal to an authority. This does not make it a fallacy. If appeal to authority did not count as evidence than every academic who ever wrote a book is null and void. Indeed, Federalist no 41 was written to persuade the Anti Federalists and the American people that the words "general welfare" were not an unlimited grant of power. The Anti-Federalists charged that "General Welfare" amounted to an unlimited authority. James Madison told them that this was ridiculous, after all, why enumerate powers at all if the government can do anything under the guise of "general welfare?" He also advocated for a Bill of rights complete with the now 10th Amendment (The first amendment proposed) to mitigate these concerns.


Court Packing Scheme that preceded the two Supreme Court Cases.
The switch in time that saved nine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The First Supreme Court cases interpreting the words "General Welfare"
Steward Machine Company v. Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUBH1dygxyE]FDR Fireside Chat 9: On "Court-Packing" - YouTube[/ame]

Federalist No. 41

...... Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

You see, FDR is why we have so much corruption and corporate favoritism in government today. He expanded the power of the federal government and all the fat cats rushed in for influence. It's called lobbying and the larger the government the more lobbying you get.

I think you best read the link on "court packing" carefully.

The Federalist Papers are not law. The right cannot speak out of one side of their mouth - strict construction" and then point to other sources to interpret the Constitution to meet their needs.

There is no doubt Madison wrote what he believed; there is no doubt that what he believed is not law.

 

[bripat9643]

Workers rights were important before the reforms brought about during the Great Depression.
.
Yeah, the only good economies during the same period were fascist's, communist's or Nazi's.

The fascists, communists and Nazis got rid of their unemployed by sending them to concentration camps.

Yeah, that's a great way to run an economy.

 

[Nosmo King]

Having trouble following your thinking, but if we're talking monetary wealth --net worth-- what it amounts to is assets minus debts, so we're talking making assets (say, building houses creating a business) and paying off debts. This is where the hard work comes in.

Almost all wealth is created by just hard work --but hey, hard work is fun!

Sorry. Blame it on spellcheck and an iPad keyboard.

My point is wealth was once created by creating things. Now, wealth is created by making a killing in the market. Which is more sustainable, accessible and noble?

What do you think that money in the market does?

I know what it does not do. It does not serve to enrich the labor which produces the goods. While the Dow is trading in record territory, the broader economy driven bt consumer spending has shrunk. Wages have shrunk. Benefits have shrunk.

What does that money do other than enrich the investors? Isn't creating wealth through labor more sustainable, fair and noble than creating wealth through making a killing on the market? Have we already forgotten 2008, or 1929?

 

[bripat9643]

...wealth is not creates by creating but created by holding wealth...

Having trouble following your thinking, but if we're talking monetary wealth --net worth-- what it amounts to is assets minus debts, so we're talking making assets (say, building houses creating a business) and paying off debts. This is where the hard work comes in.

Almost all wealth is created by just hard work --but hey, hard work is fun!

Sorry. Blame it on spellcheck and an iPad keyboard.

My point is wealth was once created by creating things. Now, wealth is created by making a killing in the market. Which is more sustainable, accessible and noble?

Actually, wealth is still made the old fashioned way. The stock market only determines who owns it.

 

[Nosmo King]

...wealth is created by making a killing in the market...

Ah. Personally I'm unconvinced that those with hundreds of $milllions from say running touchdowns or staring in movies etc. have ever had to kill someone in a supermarket, but hey we're all free to believe what we want to.

In the grand view of the economy, what percentage of wage earners are fullbacks or movie stars?

 

[bripat9643]

...wealth is created by making a killing in the market...

Ah. Personally I'm unconvinced that those with hundreds of $milllions from say running touchdowns or staring in movies etc. have ever had to kill someone in a supermarket, but hey we're all free to believe what we want to.

In the grand view of the economy, what percentage of wage earners are fullbacks or movie stars?

A lot bigger than the percentage of CEOs making 8 figure salaries.

 

[Nosmo King]

Ah. Personally I'm unconvinced that those with hundreds of $milllions from say running touchdowns or staring in movies etc. have ever had to kill someone in a supermarket, but hey we're all free to believe what we want to.

In the grand view of the economy, what percentage of wage earners are fullbacks or movie stars?

A lot bigger than the percentage of CEOs making 8 figure salaries.

And combined, one hell of a lot bigger than those formerly of the middle class.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Never attributed anything to Marx. Huh?
Republicans aren't going to stop anyone from voting. Bullshit
Read the last 4 paragraphs of Federalist 51 bred from Anti-Federalist criticisms whereas Madison essentially stated that the federal government wont be able to go beyond it's enumerated powers under the guise of "general welfare." Fallacy of the Appeal to Authority.

It wasn't until FDR, and after the threat of packing the courts, did the SCOTUS reject Federalist no 41.

Explain your last comment in detail with probative evidence.

Are you denying FDR threatened to pack the court to get the ruling he demanded?

No Frank, please take a reading comprehension course.

I'm not denying that FDR was frustrated in his efforts to get Americans back to work. The conservatives then and the conservatives today put ideology over pragmatism and their self interest before the nation. Any President faced with such opposition would attempt to take control.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Ah. Personally I'm unconvinced that those with hundreds of $milllions from say running touchdowns or staring in movies etc. have ever had to kill someone in a supermarket, but hey we're all free to believe what we want to.

In the grand view of the economy, what percentage of wage earners are fullbacks or movie stars?

A lot bigger than the percentage of CEOs making 8 figure salaries.

Only the long snapper and the punter earn less than an NFL Fullback. The average salary of an NFL FB is $1.4 Million - Chump change for an American CEO who may earn a Billion Dollars in a career.

"8 figures" is a billion dollars. How many times $1.4 Million is a Billion? Oh, and at the season opening, only 22 FB's were on NFL team rosters and the average career for an NFL player is 3.5 years.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Explain your last comment in detail with probative evidence.

Are you denying FDR threatened to pack the court to get the ruling he demanded?

No Frank, please take a reading comprehension course.

I'm not denying that FDR was frustrated in his efforts to get Americans back to work. The conservatives then and the conservatives today put ideology over pragmatism and their self interest before the nation. Any President faced with such opposition would attempt to take control.

FDR was the biggest economic failure ever, he eclipsed the 7 Biblical Lean Years.

The problem was his insane desire to try to control and micro-manage the economy. He had to have a defacto rewrite of the Constitution.

FDR had 2 whole terms to make things better and he only made it worse. If not for Hitler starting WWII Lord know how much longer the FDR Depression would have dragged on.

 

[Publius1787]

Explain your last comment in detail with probative evidence.

1. I did not mention Marx
2. You cannot point to anything Republicans have done that will effectively prevent voting.

3. Pointing to the father of the Constitution is indeed, an appeal to an authority. This does not make it a fallacy. If appeal to authority did not count as evidence than every academic who ever wrote a book is null and void. Indeed, Federalist no 41 was written to persuade the Anti Federalists and the American people that the words "general welfare" were not an unlimited grant of power. The Anti-Federalists charged that "General Welfare" amounted to an unlimited authority. James Madison told them that this was ridiculous, after all, why enumerate powers at all if the government can do anything under the guise of "general welfare?" He also advocated for a Bill of rights complete with the now 10th Amendment (The first amendment proposed) to mitigate these concerns.


Court Packing Scheme that preceded the two Supreme Court Cases.
The switch in time that saved nine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The First Supreme Court cases interpreting the words "General Welfare"
Steward Machine Company v. Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUBH1dygxyE]FDR Fireside Chat 9: On "Court-Packing" - YouTube[/ame]

Federalist No. 41

...... Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

You see, FDR is why we have so much corruption and corporate favoritism in government today. He expanded the power of the federal government and all the fat cats rushed in for influence. It's called lobbying and the larger the government the more lobbying you get.

I think you best read the link on "court packing" carefully.

The Federalist Papers are not law. The right cannot speak out of one side of their mouth - strict construction" and then point to other sources to interpret the Constitution to meet their needs.

There is no doubt Madison wrote what he believed; there is no doubt that what he believed is not law.

I think your comments would be better served as to argue why his interpretation is wrong as opposed to simply telling us that his interpretation is not law. His argument is iron clad. You may disagree with him, but that doesn't change the fact that his argument is iron clad. Now, if you were to look up those who opposed his argument you would find a far reaching and dubious attempt to skirt around the constitution. I know each and every one of these arguments to include the one that prevailed and I am certain that it is so complicated that you would not be able to fairly assess what the hell they're talking about.

In any case, both the right and the left speak from both sides of their mouths on constitutional theory. We are only talking about ONE constitutional theory. Don't come here thinking that I'm going to let you get away with attempting to discredit a theory via judicial behavior. Indeed, every lawyer is commanded to argue to the best of their ability, and thus, wacky interpretations arise. For a lawyer, the ends justify the argumentative means. It would be against the law for a lawyer to take any other position than that. It's called arguing in bad faith.

Nothing you posted above discredits Madison's legal theory. However, you can start by addressing this question: If the words "general welfare" are a grant of general power (And not an understanding that the enumerated powers must be carried out in a manner that promotes the general welfare), then why did the Founding Framers bother enumerating any powers at all? No one in the history of the United States as been able to answer this question.

Among the enumerated powers voted down during the constitutional convention was the power to charter a bank, the powers to direct funds toward internal improvements, roads, canals, schools, and etcetera. And yet, the federal government of today in involved in all of this and more.

 

[Publius1787]

Explain your last comment in detail with probative evidence.

Are you denying FDR threatened to pack the court to get the ruling he demanded?

No Frank, please take a reading comprehension course.

I'm not denying that FDR was frustrated in his efforts to get Americans back to work. The conservatives then and the conservatives today put ideology over pragmatism and their self interest before the nation. Any President faced with such opposition would attempt to take control.

Adherence to the rule of law may be an ideological principle, however, it is one that has been tried and true. Indeed, we should put the law before practicality. If we don't like it we change the law. Liberal judicial philosophy, however, is that if the law of the land is preventing practicality it can just evolve to suit the practical needs of fallible political heads. Seeing as actually amending the Constitution is impossible as no one in the US will agree with what they whish to destroy, they have adopted the idea of a magically changing document that bends to their will whenever it suits their needs. FDR was the king of this philosophy. By the liberal interpretation of the US Constitution, the amendment process is not necessary for the document to change. For them the law means anything/everything, and therefore, it means nothing at all.

 

[Avorysuds]

FDR will be remembered as the worst President in US history, unless Obama or someone else in the future takes that spot. It's just fact. Long after America is done/gone/destroyed/no more, party hackery will no longer have relevance (based on american Dem/Rep) and only what works and what does not work get jusged, FDR will be remembered as a the horrible human he really is/was.

 

[Indeependent]

Having trouble following your thinking, but if we're talking monetary wealth --net worth-- what it amounts to is assets minus debts, so we're talking making assets (say, building houses creating a business) and paying off debts. This is where the hard work comes in.

Almost all wealth is created by just hard work --but hey, hard work is fun!

Sorry. Blame it on spellcheck and an iPad keyboard.

My point is wealth was once created by creating things. Now, wealth is created by making a killing in the market. Which is more sustainable, accessible and noble?

What do you think that money in the market does?

Money as in actual coinage and Bank Notes or virtual values whose actual value does not trickle down to those who actually create the wealth?