Liberal Contempt for the Constitution

[PoliticalChic]

Both Madison and Hamilton agreed on the narrow construction, i.e. that the taxes should be related to other enumerated powers... until after ratification.

Do you have evidence of this or I am to take you at your word?

I don't believe that taking my word should be a problem, but as we have no history, the following is checkable.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause.[1] It is the clause that gives the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. Component parts of this clause are known as the General Welfare Clause[2] and the Uniformity Clause.

James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[16][17]

Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[18]
Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


16.^ a b Madison, The Federalist No. 41 General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution, The Independent Journal
17.^ Madison, James. (3 March 1817) Letter to the House of Representatives,Veto of federal public works bill, March 3, 1817
18.^ Hamilton, Alexander. (5 December 1791) "Report on Manufactures" The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (ed. by H.C. Syrett et al.; New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961-79)

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'll rephrase:


How can there only be one correct interpretation of the Constitution when the Framers themselves did not agree?

Straw man.

On what basis do you claim only "be one correct interpretation of the Constitution"


Under discussion is whether or not the concept of " living Constitution" is consistent with the views of the Founders.

Obviously any document subject to interpretation is a "living" document, unless you plan on resurrecting its framers.

At times you appear knowledgeable,,at others, such as above, you appear to dabble in obfuscation.


Are you claiming that you do not know of the monumental differences between those who feel that the Founders suggested a document that would stand through the ages, complete with a way to amend it, and those who see wish an ever-expanding government, ever-more intrusive, and find that the restrictions of the Constitution stand in the way?


Progressives who see this kind of governing include those named Roosevelt, and Wilson.

You don't wish to take my word for it?
1. Teddy Roosevelt, in his “New Nationalism” speech” rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.” New Nationalism Speech by Theodore Roosevelt

2. “The national government, in TR's view, was not one of enumerated powers but of general powers, and the purpose of the Constitution was merely to state the exceptions to that rule. This is a view of government directly refuted by Alexander Hamilton (who was hardly a shrinking violet about the powers of the national government) in Federalist 84. Hamilton explains there that the fundamental difference between a republican constitution and a monarchic one is that the latter reserves some liberty for the people by stating specific exceptions to the assumed general power of the crown, whereas the former assumes from the beginning that the power of the people is the general rule, and the power of the government the exception. TR, of course, turns this on its head.” The Claremont Institute - Why Progressivism is Not, and Never Was, a Source of Conservative Values

3. In “Congressional Government,” Wilson's most famous and original work, he set out to argue that America should switch to a centralized parliamentary system, where there are fewer checks on the will of the rulers, but the book evolved into a sweeping indictment of the fragmentation and diffuseness of power in the American political system. He states:

4. "The legal processes of constitutional change are so slow and cumbersome that we have been constrained to adopt a serviceable framework of fictions which enable us easily to preserve the forms without laboriously obeying the spirit of the Constitution, which will stretch as the nation grows." P. 242


To bring the debate up to the present, consider Senator Schumer threatening Spirit airlines if they charge a fee for the use of overheads, and the Mayor of NYC, claiming that food producers don't voluntarily cut the amount of salt in foods, he will ask the government to pass laws to that effect.

For such folks, the collective and the state are the only entities.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both Madison and Hamilton agreed on the narrow construction, i.e. that the taxes should be related to other enumerated powers... until after ratification.

Do you have evidence of this or I am to take you at your word?

I don't believe that taking my word should be a problem, but as we have no history, the following is checkable.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause.[1] It is the clause that gives the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. Component parts of this clause are known as the General Welfare Clause[2] and the Uniformity Clause.

James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[16][17]

Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[18]
Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


16.^ a b Madison, The Federalist No. 41 General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution, The Independent Journal
17.^ Madison, James. (3 March 1817) Letter to the House of Representatives,Veto of federal public works bill, March 3, 1817
18.^ Hamilton, Alexander. (5 December 1791) "Report on Manufactures" The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (ed. by H.C. Syrett et al.; New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961-79)

That merely means that Hamilton outmaneuvered the Virginian in 1787 and 1788 and in 1790/1791. AH wanted broad economic powers for the national government, got GW to support him, then tricked JM again and TJ in a trade off for his economic package for the capitol being the south.

What is very interesting is that JM went from a strong nationalist (he had E. Randolph front the "Big State" plan at the Convention) to being an "interpositionist" in 1798, along with TJ, in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions.

No historical basis exists to suggest that the issues among the Founders were "minor" at the Convention and thereafter.

Politicalchic, please give us the number of delegates at the Convention who refused to sign the document, as well as the deal JM had to make to get the states to ratify it, as well as the close votes for ratification in VA and NY and MASS, all necessary to ratify the document.

You won't do this, because you have ignored the request before because it contravenes your agenda. But I thought I would give it one more chance.

Please: stop revising our national narrative to a history that did not exist.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Both Madison and Hamilton agreed on the narrow construction, i.e. that the taxes should be related to other enumerated powers... until after ratification.

Do you have evidence of this or I am to take you at your word?

I don't believe that taking my word should be a problem, but as we have no history, the following is checkable.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause.[1] It is the clause that gives the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. Component parts of this clause are known as the General Welfare Clause[2] and the Uniformity Clause.

James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[16][17]

Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[18]
Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


16.^ a b Madison, The Federalist No. 41 General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution, The Independent Journal
17.^ Madison, James. (3 March 1817) Letter to the House of Representatives,Veto of federal public works bill, March 3, 1817
18.^ Hamilton, Alexander. (5 December 1791) "Report on Manufactures" The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (ed. by H.C. Syrett et al.; New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961-79)

The fact that Hamilton argued for a broad interpretation after the signing does not mean he agreed with Madison before the signing, only that he argued for a broad interpreation after the signing.

 

[jillian]

I'll rephrase:


How can there only be one correct interpretation of the Constitution when the Framers themselves did not agree?

Straw man.

On what basis do you claim only "be one correct interpretation of the Constitution"


Under discussion is whether or not the concept of " living Constitution" is consistent with the views of the Founders.

Obviously any document subject to interpretation is a "living" document, unless you plan on resurrecting its framers.

it was always intended that the application of the document should be broadly construed in favor of individual liberties......

and you are correct insofar as constitutional scholars find no agreement on many issues and there has been over 200 years of argument.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Are you claiming that you do not know of the monumental differences between those who feel that the Founders suggested a document that would stand through the ages, complete with a way to amend it, and those who see wish an ever-expanding government, ever-more intrusive, and find that the restrictions of the Constitution stand in the way?

The above question is based on the assumption that your own particular interpretation of the Constitution is the correct one and that those who disagree do so no out of honest disagreement, but because they wish to disregard the Constitution. Being based on a ridiculous assumption, I decline to answer.

To bring the debate up to the present, consider Senator Schumer threatening Spirit airlines if they charge a fee for the use of overheads,

LOL! Are you honestly arguing that airlines are not subject to regulation by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause? You can't be serious!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you claiming that you do not know of the monumental differences between those who feel that the Founders suggested a document that would stand through the ages, complete with a way to amend it, and those who see wish an ever-expanding government, ever-more intrusive, and find that the restrictions of the Constitution stand in the way?

The above question is based on the assumption that your own particular interpretation of the Constitution is the correct one and that those who disagree do so no out of honest disagreement, but because they wish to disregard the Constitution. Being based on a ridiculous assumption, I decline to answer.

To bring the debate up to the present, consider Senator Schumer threatening Spirit airlines if they charge a fee for the use of overheads,

LOL! Are you honestly arguing that airlines are not subject to regulation by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause? You can't be serious!

Frivolous.

Your statement was "Obviously any document subject to interpretation is a "living" document"
The implication is that you are using 'living document' as a general term, and not as a major point of discussion with respect to the US Constitution.

"The Living Constitution is a concept in American constitutional interpretation which claims that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning...."
Living Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It stretches credulity to believe that one with serious interest in this thread would be unfamiliar with the connection, so what remains is that your intention is to sidestep the question.


"the assumption that your own particular interpretation of the Constitution is the correct one ..." True.

"...and that those who disagree do so no out of honest disagreement, but because they wish to disregard the Constitution." This is also true, as it can be easily found in their own words.
a)They wish to disregard the Constitution, and b)you may call it honest disagreement, I say misguided.

"...I decline to answer." Wimp.

Come on, put up ya' dukes. Jakey'll hold your coat...or one of the other sycophants.


"LOL! Are you honestly arguing that airlines are not subject to regulation by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause? You can't be serious."
You can't seriously accept that the monarchy- er, government, has the purview to tell a private business how much they can charge of baggage???? How much for peanuts? Color of uniforms?

Do you ever draw the line?

You probably think that the government is overdue in regulating the size of those giant popcorn tubs in the theatre.

Grow a pair.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you have evidence of this or I am to take you at your word?

I don't believe that taking my word should be a problem, but as we have no history, the following is checkable.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause.[1] It is the clause that gives the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. Component parts of this clause are known as the General Welfare Clause[2] and the Uniformity Clause.

James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[16][17]

Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[18]
Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


16.^ a b Madison, The Federalist No. 41 General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution, The Independent Journal
17.^ Madison, James. (3 March 1817) Letter to the House of Representatives,Veto of federal public works bill, March 3, 1817
18.^ Hamilton, Alexander. (5 December 1791) "Report on Manufactures" The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (ed. by H.C. Syrett et al.; New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961-79)

The fact that Hamilton argued for a broad interpretation after the signing does not mean he agreed with Madison before the signing, only that he argued for a broad interpreation after the signing.

"...only after the Constitution had been ratified..."
Pray tell, how do you interpret the above.

You can run, but you can't hide.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

"LOL! Are you honestly arguing that airlines are not subject to regulation by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause? You can't be serious."
You can't seriously accept that the monarchy- er, government, has the purview to tell a private business how much they can charge of baggage???? How much for peanuts? Color of uniforms?

It is immensely amusing to me that so called pro-constitution folks like yourself prefer to argue based on whether or not something seems wrong to them rather than what the Constitution very clearly says. The Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce PERIOD. It doesn't say "Congress has to power to regulate interstate commerce, so long as POliticalChic finds it reasonable"


So I have to ask, other than your lame "You can't be serious" argument, do you have any argument actually based on what the Constitution says?

Do you ever draw the line?

Please tell me where the line is drawn in the Constitution. It says the Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Where is the line in there?

You probably think that the government is overdue in regulating the size of those giant popcorn tubs in the theatre.

Grow a pair.

You don't actually have an argument based on the Constitution, do you?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

"...only after the Constitution had been ratified..."
Pray tell, how do you interpret the above.

I like how you quote a wikepedian as gospel.

 

[westwall]

No problemo good buddy..here's a story from that most trusted of left leaning newsagenies CNN...you can take it from there.

CNN.com - Domestic terror: Who's most dangerous? - Aug 24, 2005

And BTW I don't analyze. I give opinions based on many years of research and most of what I post is from memory from many thousands of books and magazines read over the years. I spend as little time behind a moniter as possible and do most of my research in a university or state library (or laboratory) as need takes me.

I am sorry that a POS like McVeigh ever existed. But the fact remains that over the last 40 years it is leftists commiting the most violence, the rightists just happen to be more effective at it. The Jim Crow laws predate the period we are talking about and they too were truly horrible but don't forget the Democrats tried to kill the Civil Rights legislation, it was REPUBLICANS that got it passed.

We can go on tit for tatting all week long if you wish but it is nothing more than mental masturbation.

You are right. You are sorry. Sorry that you didn't put up a link. Republican Timothy McVeigh took out 168 American Citizens. Who on the left even approaches that - put together?

Add in the Jim Crow laws, violence against gays, lynchings, what was done to civil rights protesters in the south. You can't even BEGIN to make a comparison.

Then you are a happy camper. Give us the links, please, because you analyze as weakly as PolticalChic who is recognized as here for only the grins and chuckles.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, silliness, westwall. You tell only the minority report of the story. The divide for the bills was geographical, not ideological. That means ~ now follow me closely ~ that if you were southern republicans and democrats, you overwhelmingly voted against it, that if you were democrats and republicans elsewhere, you voted for it. Now the minority party (and very minor in numbers) did vote in higher % for it because the GOP normally did not get elected downhere back then.

But don't ever pretend the GOP was the driving, motivational force for Civil Rights, kiddo, because it was flatly not.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Oh, silliness, westwall. You tell only the minority report of the story. The divide for the bills was geographical, not ideological. That means ~ now follow me closely ~ that if you were southern republicans and democrats, you overwhelmingly voted against it, that if you were democrats and republicans elsewhere, you voted for it. Now the minority party (and very minor in numbers) did vote in higher % for it because the GOP normally did not get elected downhere back then.

But don't ever pretend the GOP was the driving, motivational force for Civil Rights, kiddo, because it was flatly not.

Not to mention the fact that the signing of civil rights legislation by Johnson was the reason a lot of Democrats - like Strom Thurmond - left the Democratic party and went to the Republican party.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And other democrats, like Harry Byrd, realized it was time to wise up.

I love it when MessiahRushie chants this chorus so offchord with the actual American narrative. What a loon!

 

[rdean]

No problemo good buddy..here's a story from that most trusted of left leaning newsagenies CNN...you can take it from there.

CNN.com - Domestic terror: Who's most dangerous? - Aug 24, 2005

And BTW I don't analyze. I give opinions based on many years of research and most of what I post is from memory from many thousands of books and magazines read over the years. I spend as little time behind a moniter as possible and do most of my research in a university or state library (or laboratory) as need takes me.

I am sorry that a POS like McVeigh ever existed. But the fact remains that over the last 40 years it is leftists commiting the most violence, the rightists just happen to be more effective at it. The Jim Crow laws predate the period we are talking about and they too were truly horrible but don't forget the Democrats tried to kill the Civil Rights legislation, it was REPUBLICANS that got it passed.

We can go on tit for tatting all week long if you wish but it is nothing more than mental masturbation.

Then you are a happy camper. Give us the links, please, because you analyze as weakly as PolticalChic who is recognized as here for only the grins and chuckles.

Many years of research? Doing what? Counting the stubbly hairs on your butt from the mirror your sitting on? And I bet you REMEMBER every single one.

NEXT TIME, READ YOUR OWN DAMN ARTICLE. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE????

From your own article:

But to date, Vlasak notwithstanding, no one has died from any of these attacks. And nothing on the terror scale of Oklahoma City or the 1996 Olympics has been committed, said Potok.

"A single person from the American extreme right managed to murder 168 people in a stroke," he said, referring to Oklahoma City. "There was a Ku Klux Klan plot in the late '90s that contemplated killing 30,000 people."

But he says that -- since Oklahoma City -- 15 police officers have been killed by right-wing extremists and his group has produced a list of some 60 plots by white supremacists and other anti-government radicals during that time - including, of course, Rudolph's bombing campaign.

Political pressure from the White House and conservative Republicans toward the environmental movement is, in part, the reason eco-terrorism is now the priority, he said.

"My worry is that, just as in the years running up to the Oklahoma City bombing, ... we will ignore a world of violence emanating from our own extreme right."

 

[Father Time]

"...and that those who disagree do so no out of honest disagreement, but because they wish to disregard the Constitution." This is also true, as it can be easily found in their own words.

You honestly think there's no way people could follow the constitution and disagree with your interpretation of it?

But fine I'll bite do show us some mainstream folks who said they want to flat out ignore the constitution.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

"...and that those who disagree do so no out of honest disagreement, but because they wish to disregard the Constitution." This is also true, as it can be easily found in their own words.

You honestly think there's no way people could follow the constitution and disagree with your interpretation of it?

She also thinks the interstate commerce clause does not apply to private businesses.

 

[rdean]

"...and that those who disagree do so no out of honest disagreement, but because they wish to disregard the Constitution." This is also true, as it can be easily found in their own words.

You honestly think there's no way people could follow the constitution and disagree with your interpretation of it?

She also thinks the interstate commerce clause does not apply to private businesses.

She thinks? When did that start?

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC doesn't think, that's the point here. She posts articles and commentaries and believes that she is in the heat of argumentation. She can't respond to legitimate commentary. Watch what she does the next out of the gate.

 

[westwall]

I never said it was the driveing force good buddy.. But if you look in the history books you will see quite clearly the Dems were trying to kill it and Johnson had to get help from the Republicans to pass it. That is look uppable

Oh, silliness, westwall. You tell only the minority report of the story. The divide for the bills was geographical, not ideological. That means ~ now follow me closely ~ that if you were southern republicans and democrats, you overwhelmingly voted against it, that if you were democrats and republicans elsewhere, you voted for it. Now the minority party (and very minor in numbers) did vote in higher % for it because the GOP normally did not get elected downhere back then.

But don't ever pretend the GOP was the driving, motivational force for Civil Rights, kiddo, because it was flatly not.