Article 1, Section 8 - Question for Conservatives

Am I reading this right?? You want legislators to be executed for writing unconstitutional laws? Wowzzzeeeeee.

 

What's that now? "None of the Founders share" my view, you say? Let's look at commentary from another Founder of the Constitution, shall we?

Alexander Hamilton - "The National Legislature has express authority To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition. It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper."

As I've said many times, the Founders disagreed on the execution of the General Welfare clause, just like we disagree. Therefore, the Constitution grants Congress the power to create "all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution." This is an explicit enumerated power granted Congress.

This does not, however, as you would believe otherwise, give the government unlimited power. Congressman first have to be elected, then a bill has to voted on in the House, then the Senate, then passed, then given to the President, and the the SC can strick it down or not, etc. There are many checks and balances built into the system to prevent "unlimited government".

Since your argument is based solely on your ability to find a Founding Father who agrees with you and NOT the actual text of the Constitution, your case is dismissed as nonsense. I have the text and a Founding Father which agree with me, you only have a Father who shares your Conservative viewpoint.

Game. Set. Match.

 

You need to try and understand what that meant at the time and not under the current welfare state that has been instituted by progressives. It is funny that the democrats were once the laissez faire leaders of government and it was the religious influence in the government that led to the current crop of social engineers when it became more secular and humanist. The idea that progressive can institute their vision of utopia goes back a long time but it does not go back to the Founders but rather then end of the 1800's into the early 1900's. Now the democrats are the leaders in progressive social engineering using the force of government stepping on freedoms with no regard for the intent of the Constitution which was designed to protect us from government and enhance the most valuable and most fragile idea that the Constitution enshrined, freedom from government of the elite.

 

Alexander Hamilton - "A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition. It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper."

I defend my position by citing a Founding Father as well...

And the General Welfare clause is Clause 1 of the Enumerated Powers:

"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;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

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;

.................."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers

I defend my position by citing a Founder AND citing the Constitution.

 

You realize it took the 16th amendment and many court cases to make an income tax constitutional don't you?

 

Apparently you don't realize that when Hamilton made that argument it was completely destroyed by his contemporaries. Madison and Jefferson are on record even making fun of him.

 

Lol. Hahaha. That's all you got? How about we stick to the Constitution, shall we?

Now I'm on record making fun of you...According to your own argument, I guess you just lost your's.

 

The seduction of collectivism is ever present. Men naturally seek to attain power and then secure power and then seek more power. The Founders knew this and is why their first act was to limit the powers of government which are often referred to as "negative rights".

Early on, the Whig Party gravitated toward this collective mentality as they attempted to strengthen the power of the Federal governemnt with such legislation as the Alien and Sedition Act. Basically it was an attempt to restrict free speech, an obvious Constitutional right. If it were not for men like Jefferson, the US would have fell under the collectivist spell long ago had he not helped to overturn the Alien and Sedition Act.

The battles between Jefferson and Hamilton are well known as they struggled for the soul of the nation. I favor men like Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence and Madison who wrote the Constitution. Others follow men like Hamilton, so be it.

For the collectivist, I would only ask one question. What is your concept of a limited government?

 

A government that consists of three branches which contrain and are checks and balances against each other. Sound familiar?

 

Son, do you have any idea what the term "Federalism" means?

Today, here is a few exaamples of our checks and balances in the Federal government.

The Congress is unable to pass the Dream Act, so Obama passes Executive Orders that mirror the legislation.

The Congress is unable to pass cap and trade, so Obama has the EPA begin to implement it.

The Congres was never consented to go to war in Libya which violated the War Powers Act. Obama simply said it was not a war.

The Health care mandate was declared unconsitutional, so the language of the legislation was changed by one judge so it could be allowed.

Checks and balances? Where? It's a one man show.

 

Your logic escapes me.

Are you denying that Hamilton lost that debate?

 

You should be wary of the power of collectivism that allows a president to run the nation by edict or Executive Order. We all realize that you are happy that your man Obama is in power cause you like him. However, it is only a matter of time before you get another "W". What then?

Also, is it wise having one man run the nation? Just look at the army of unelected czars Obama needs just to try and keep up with it all. The whole system is askew. States were originally meant to handle their affairs for the most part.

 

Actually, it is the common defense and general welfare; not the common offense or general warfare as alleged conservatives seem to believe.

 

Our federal Congress is only delegated the power to Tax, to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

It is not a welfare-state that is doing that but a non-enumerated warfare-state that is cause you so much grief regarding enslavement.

 

Improving our standard of living could be considered a promotion of the general welfare.

 

I agree to disagree. Our Founding Fathers did an excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Our Constitution is not poorly worded since it provides us with all the political tools we need, to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

 

You are confusing mediocre public policy choices with providing for the general welfare. Actually solving poverty instead of merely paying for a War on Poverty should be considered providing for the general welfare, instead of the general warfare.

 

lol...wut?

Since you're attempting to claim that the Constitution says something that it does not, and I quote actual authors of the document iterating a precise rebuttal to your specific claim, I'd say that commentary is spot on.

It shatters into pieces your contention. Buh-bye now.

 

Well we do happen to disagree about that, but what do you think about what I wrote in that paragraph you're responding to, here? Do you think that the constitution, as written can serve as a legal restraint on legislators?

 

Public sector intervention in private sector markets does not need to be charity to ensure full employment of resources in any given market, simply for the sake of the general prosperity and general welfare.

 

Our drug war is worse, yet, those of your point of view complain more about social spending for real persons; contrary to a moral of "goodwill toward men".

 

The drug war does more of what you claim, but you don't seem to complain about that as much.

 

As I have said before, the Constitution began by limiting the power of government over us. These are called negaitive rights.

Conversely, collectivists like FDR came up with a second bill of rights. These rights were called "positive rights" because they empowerd government to "give us things".

The two camps could not be farther apart and for the most part both disdain the other.

No document can restrain legislators. That takes the ability and will to enfoce its tenants. Over the years this has been lacking.

Just out of curiosity, what other document do you prize as better?

 

Only a welfare-state is specifically enumerated, not a warfare-state like alleged conservatives would like to have us believe.