Founders And The General Welfare

[Robo]

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America." (James Madison)

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one....(James Madison)

"With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." (James Madison)

"Our tenet ever was . . . that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action." (Thomas Jefferson)

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." (Thomas Jefferson)

[Tahuyaman]

The constitution puts restraints on government in general, not just on a president.

[Chris]

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." (Thomas Jefferson)

What he believed but not true.

The Articles of Confederation did so limit the powers of the federal government to those expressly enumerated. The Constitution does not.

[Newpublius]

What he believed but not true.

The Articles of Confederation did so limit the powers of the federal government to those expressly enumerated. The Constitution does not.

necrssary and proper is not as limiting as expressly but it is limiting nonetheless....

[decedent]

The constitution puts restraints on government in general, not just on a president.
The main reason the Constitution was created was the promotion of general welfare, according to its preamble.

[MisterVeritis]

The main reason the Constitution was created was the promotion of general welfare, according to its preamble.
This is half correct. The two principle reasons were defense/foreign policy and to promote the general welfare. See Article 1 Section 8 for what is allowed.

[Cletus]

What matters is the meaning of "the general welfare". According to Madison it applies only to those actions necessary to execute the specifically enumerated powers.

Hamilton thought differently, but Hamilton was stupid enough to get himself killed in a duel.

[Chris]

necrssary and proper is not as limiting as expressly but it is limiting nonetheless....

Yes, legislature must at least rationally explain why something is necessary and proper. But that's fairly easy.

[Chris]

The main reason the Constitution was created was the promotion of general welfare, according to its preamble.

No, it was to centralize the power of the federal government. Appeals to the people were meant to circumvent the states.

[Robo]

The constitution puts restraints on government in general, not just on a president.

But the absurdity of the general welfare clause broad definition has rendered the Constitution to a single clause, a waste of ink and a contradictory absurdity. Just as Jefferson and Madison opined.

[Chris]

What matters is the meaning of "the general welfare". According to Madison it applies only to those actions necessary to execute the specifically enumerated powers.

Hamilton thought differently, but Hamilton was stupid enough to get himself killed in a duel.

And yet, sadly, Hamilton's view prevailed.

[Robo]

What he believed but not true.

The Articles of Confederation did so limit the powers of the federal government to those expressly enumerated. The Constitution does not.

Amendment 10.

[Robo]

necrssary and proper is not as limiting as expressly but it is limiting nonetheless....

"Necessary and proper" is determined by the enumerated powers and amendments granting powers.

[Robo]

The main reason the Constitution was created was the promotion of general welfare, according to its preamble.The Constitution was written to establish as a guarantee for the people of limits to government and rights of the individual. The general welfare is those things enumerated in the Constitution as a limited power of the government.

[Chris]

The Constitution was written to establish as a guarantee for the people of limits to government and rights of the individual. The general welfare is those things enumerated in the Constitution as a limited power of the government.

That was true of the Articles of Confederation. As for the Constitution, Madison left out of the 10th the word expressly, which was common in those days.

Here are some of Madison's notes:


The 9th proposition, in the words following, was considered, “The powers not delegated by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively.”

Mr. Tucker proposed to amend the proposition, by prefixing to it “all powers being derived from the people.” He thought this a better place to make this assertion than the introductory clause of the Constitution, where a similar sentiment was proposed by the committee. He extended his motion also, to add the word “expressly,” so as to read “the powers not expressly delegated by this Constitution.”

Mr. Madison objected to this amendment, because it was impossible to confine a Government to the exercise of express powers; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the Constitution descended to recount every minutia. He remembered the word “expressly” had been moved in the convention of Virginia, by the opponents to the ratification, and, after full and fair discussion, was given up by them, and the system allowed to retain its present form.

The Constitution was counterrevolutionary.

[Chris]

Amendment 10.

10 doesn't expressly limit.

[Ethereal]

Democrats don't care what the founders said unless it helps promote the Democrat agenda, which is almost never. And that is why they want to send the founders down the memory hole, because their beliefs are essentially 100% opposite of what modern Democrats believe. So you can quote the founders all day (trust me, I've tried), it will have no effect on them and how they view government. They just want more of your money and they're not going to let some dead white guys get in their way.

[Tahuyaman]

The main reason the Constitution was created was the promotion of general welfare, according to its preamble.


The main purpose of the US Constitution was to limit the power of government. Period.

[Tahuyaman]

But the absurdity of the general welfare clause broad definition has rendered the Constitution to a single clause, a waste of ink and a contradictory absurdity. Just as Jefferson and Madison opined.


Thats only applicable able to those who cherry pick that single clause and basically ignore the rest.

[Tahuyaman]

No, it was to centralize the power of the federal government. Appeals to the people were meant to circumvent the states.


It to limit the power of the federal government. Not centralize power.

[OGIS]

The Constitution was counterrevolutionary.

Yes.

[Chris]

It to limit the power of the federal government. Not centralize power.

The Articles of Confederation did that, expressly, the Constitution abandoned that.

[Tahuyaman]

The US constitution was not developed with the intent to centralize power at the federal level. This is a basic fact. Years ago, kids in the fifth and sixth grade understood this. Now days elected officials and sometimes the POTUS don't get it.

[Chris]

The US constitution was not developed with the intent to centralize power at the federal level. This is a basic fact. Years ago, kids in the fifth and sixth grade understood this. Now days elected officials and sometimes the POTUS don't get it.

In fact it did just that, it centralized power, granted the federal government the power to tax, to raise a standing army, and others.

Key to this too was the deliberate refusal by Madison and others to include "expressly" in the 10th amendment. As Madison argued in Congress, see his notes above, there was no intention to limit powers.

The radicals who'd fought the Revolution for local democratic government lost out to the conservatives and merchants who preferred centralized government, just not the British.

[MisterVeritis]

In fact it did just that, it centralized power, granted the federal government the power to tax, to raise a standing army, and others.
Key to this too was the deliberate refusal by Madison and others to include "expressly" in the 10th amendment. As Madison argued in Congress, see his notes above, there was no intention to limit powers.
The radicals who'd fought the Revolution for local democratic government lost out to the conservatives and merchants who preferred centralized government, just not the British.
Americans allowed the centralization over a long period of time. We were given a Republic. We failed to keep it.

[Chris]

Americans allowed the centralization over a long period of time. We were given a Republic. We failed to keep it.

Right, the accumulation of power took place over time. Nothing stopped it, Constitution or the people.

[Bethere]

What he believed but not true.

The Articles of Confederation did so limit the powers of the federal government to those expressly enumerated. The Constitution does not.

Your best post ever.

[Newpublius]

Americans allowed the centralization over a long period of time. We were given a Republic. We failed to keep it.

We really have two macro events that federalized power. Civil War and the Great Depression. Since the Great Depression, there's simply been creep into an unlimited paradigm

[Bethere]

The US constitution was not developed with the intent to centralize power at the federal level. This is a basic fact. Years ago, kids in the fifth and sixth grade understood this. Now days elected officials and sometimes the POTUS don't get it.

The Constitution absolutely was created to consolidate federal power. That's because the articles of confederation left us unable to function.

[Bethere]

We really have two macro events that federalized power. Civil War and the Great Depression. Since the Great Depression, there's simply been creep into an unlimited paradigm

Those events, as well as the ratification of the Constitution.

[Chris]

The Constitution absolutely was created to consolidate federal power. That's because the articles of confederation left us unable to function.

It left the US unable to function. The states did just fine under democracy.

[Cletus]

FDR should have been declared an enemy and hanged.

[MisterVeritis]

Right, the accumulation of power took place over time. Nothing stopped it, Constitution or the people.
The sole power rests in the people. Among the ideas floated in the convention of states project is giving the amendments teeth. Today the Congress can thumb its collective noses at its provisions with no penalties. We want to fix that.

[MisterVeritis]

FDR should have been declared an enemy and hanged.
True. And Wilson before him.

[Chris]

We really have two macro events that federalized power. Civil War and the Great Depression. Since the Great Depression, there's simply been creep into an unlimited paradigm

I would add the Constitution itself as a macro event. Federal power has been expanding at a logarithmic rate.

[Bethere]

It left the US unable to function. The states did just fine under democracy.

They were defenseless and unable to effectively trade amongst themselves. They were a state with neither rules nor rulers, an anarchist's paradise.

[MisterVeritis]

We really have two macro events that federalized power. Civil War and the Great Depression. Since the Great Depression, there's simply been creep into an unlimited paradigm
Three. WWI introduced wartime socialism. We never let it go.

We have the means to fix it. We have not yet shown the will.

[Chris]

The sole power rests in the people. Among the ideas floated in the convention of states project is giving the amendments teeth. Today the Congress can thumb its collective noses at its provisions with no penalties. We want to fix that.

Ultimately, yes, power rests with the people.

[MisterVeritis]

The Constitution absolutely was created to consolidate federal power. That's because the articles of confederation left us unable to function.
Perhaps. Federal power under the constitution allowed only three things. The nation would be able to pay its debts, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare of the United States. It is our fault we allowed a limited government to become unlimited.

[Chris]

They were defenseless and unable to effectively trade amongst themselves. They were a state with neither rules nor rulers, an anarchist's paradise.

They were able to defend themselves, and could unite if more was needed, and trade was a great feature of the times.

They were states operating under mostly local rule. It wasn't anarchy, but close.

[MisterVeritis]

They were defenseless and unable to effectively trade amongst themselves. They were a state with neither rules nor rulers, an anarchist's paradise.
We agree.

[Bethere]

Ultimately, yes, power rests with the people.

The cool thing is that, unlike tPF, we have elected representatives who vote on our behalf.

[Bethere]

We agree.
Will wonders never cease! Maybe you, me, and chris could have a group hug!

[Chris]

The cool thing is that, unlike tPF, we have elected representatives who vote on our behalf.

tPF is not a government, it's a business. Argue from proper premises and you might arrive at something true.

[Newpublius]

The Constitution absolutely was created to consolidate federal power. That's because the articles of confederation left us unable to function.

And yet its still a federal government. During the Philadelphia Convention the name was discussed even and national was specifically rejected for federal, 18th century lingo for confederal. The Constitution created a limited government, limited meaning limited in the scope of topics it could act on, but still supreme and capable of acting on those topics. The AoC had the flaw of requring state assent to virtually all actions and the states ignored them altogether too frequently.

[Bethere]

tPF is not a government, it's a business. Argue from proper premises and you might arrive at something true.
Start a thread about that in the hole. I'll show up. We can talk frankly there.

[Bethere]

And yet its still a federal government. During the Philadelphia Convention the name was discussed even and national was specifically rejected for federal, 18th century lingo for confederal. The Constitution created a limited government, limited meaning limited in the scope of topics it could act on, but still supreme and capable of acting on those topics. The AoC had the flaw of requring state assent to virtually all actions and the states ignored them altogether too frequently.

The enumerated powers was never meant to be a complete list. The document was written in such a way that it could evolve, and it has. All of it, has been inherently constitutional.

[Newpublius]

The enumerated powers was never meant to be a complete list. The document was written in such a way that it could evolve, and it has. All of it, has been inherently constitutional.

Well then they aren't really enumerated. Nevertheless the powers are described as "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite"

[Bethere]

Well then they aren't really enumerated. Nevertheless the powers are described as "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite"

Find that language in the document. Share it with us. Thanks.

This is just another example of you making an argument at tPF that you never would have made in law school or in open court.

You need to distinguish more clearly between what is true and what you think should be true.

Thank you.

[MisterVeritis]

Will wonders never cease! Maybe you, me, and chris could have a group hug!
Probably not.

[MisterVeritis]

The enumerated powers was never meant to be a complete list. The document was written in such a way that it could evolve, and it has. All of it, has been inherently constitutional.
Of course, it was meant to be a complete list. Nearly everything the federal government does today, it does without Constitutional authority.

It was written to be amended. Do you understand the difference?

You expose yourself as an enemy of the Constitution when you say it was written to evolve.

[Bethere]

Probably not.

Lol.

[Bethere]

Of course, it was meant to be a complete list. Nearly everything the federal government does today, it does without Constitutional authority.

If it were meant to be a complete list we wouldn't have been provided so many ways to edit the document including your beloved article 5 convention.

[MisterVeritis]

If it were meant to be a complete list we wouldn't have been provided so many ways to edit the document including your beloved article 5 convention.
There is only one way to amend the Constitution. Article V of the Constitution.

One may add to the list or remove things from the list only by amending the document.

[Bethere]

There is only one way to amend the Constitution. Article V of the Constitution.

One may add to the list or remove things from the list only by amending the document.

That's no way to pass con law 101, dude.

[MisterVeritis]

That's no way to pass con law 101, dude.
People who believe as you do are the cons, dude.

[Chris]

Well then they aren't really enumerated. Nevertheless the powers are described as "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite"

And yet in Congress Madison rejected using the common delimiting term of the time, expressly.

Given 45, the op, and his notes, I'd say he was being practical, but it opened the floodgates to ever expansive government.

[Newpublius]

This is just another example of you making an argument at tPF that you never would have made in law school or in open court.

You're not in a position to impugn me in any way, shape or form.

I'm quoting Federalist 45 actually and fact is the federal government is absolutely styled as a 'limited government of enumerated powers'

"If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this-that the government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action. This would seem to result, necessarily, from its nature. It is the government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for all. Though any one state may be willing to control its operations, no state is willing to allow others to control them. The nation, on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind its component parts. But this question is not left to mere reason: the people have, in express terms, decided it, by saying, 'this constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof,' 'shall be the supreme law of the land,' and by requiring that the members of the state legislatures, and the officers of the executive and judicial departments of the states, shall take the oath of fidelity to it. The government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers, is supreme; and its laws, when made in pursuance of the constitution, form the supreme law of the land, 'anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.'" - Mcculloch v Maryland, framing federalism in this country.

You need to distinguish more clearly between what is true and what you think should be true.

First off, just to be blunt here, your command of the subject material is clearly superficial. I can tell you haven't read Madison's notes from the Philadelphia Convention, you haven't read Elliot's Debates, and its clear you haven't read the Federalist Papers or even any of Madison's letters. You clearly don't have the necessary foundation here to really discuss the topic beyond what you want to be true, specifically the New Deal misinterpretation which is clearly not supported by any historical evidence whatsoever.

Your whole argument can be summed up as "You don't know what you're talking about" which by extension means you don't think Madison, who is fashioned the 'Father of the Constitution', didn't know what he was talking about when he penned Federalist 45.
Conversely, my argument rests on the foundation that the Father of the Constitution aptly described the Constitution when writing the Federalist Papers.

And yeah, I'd make that argument in law school or open court.

[MisterVeritis]

You're not in a position to impugn me in any way, shape or form.
. . .

First off, just to be blunt here, your command of the subject material is clearly superficial. . . .

Your whole argument can be summed up as "You don't know what you're talking about" which by extension means you don't think Madison, who is fashioned the 'Father of the Constitution', didn't know what he was talking about when he penned Federalist 45.
Conversely, my argument rests on the foundation that the Father of the Constitution aptly described the Constitution when writing the Federalist Papers.
And yeah, I'd make that argument in law school or open court.
Cool. You have far more patience than I do. Bethere has frequently identified himself as a domestic enemy of the Constitution. People like him are responsible for half of the mess we are in. We are responsible for allowing people like him to get away with their nonsense.

Monumental post. Thank you.

[Newpublius]

And yet in Congress Madison rejected using the common delimiting term of the time, expressly.

Because he didn't want the Constitution to wind up being an endless list of minutiae:

“No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included.” -- Federalist 44 (before the BoR)

The nexus between the implied powers and the expressly enumerated powers is clear. Easily distinguished between a grant of general authority. Those implied powers must be necessary and proper to legislate on the expressly enumerated topics.

See also Madison's veto of public works bill: http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm

[Tahuyaman]

The Constitution absolutely was created to consolidate federal power. That's because the articles of confederation left us unable to function.
It was created to place limits on the power of the federal government. It was intended to de-centralize power at the federal level.

No wonder liberals are screwed up. They have it backwards. That is the reason the left wanted control of our education system.

[Dr. Who]

And yet its still a federal government. During the Philadelphia Convention the name was discussed even and national was specifically rejected for federal, 18th century lingo for confederal. The Constitution created a limited government, limited meaning limited in the scope of topics it could act on, but still supreme and capable of acting on those topics. The AoC had the flaw of requring state assent to virtually all actions and the states ignored them altogether too frequently.

Except that the wording of the Constitution is often so ambiguous that only those who view it from the perspective of the anti-federalists support that position. The Constitution was written in a scant 116 days, less than four months (virtually overnight) and had to unite very different political factions, so the only way to accomplish that was to make its wording sufficiently vague as allow each side to see their own perspective, if not explicitly stated, at least not opposed. Many bemoan the notion that it is a living document, but the ambiguity that characterizes certain aspects of the Constitution results in a document that is constantly subject to reinterpretation. It is both its greatest weakness and alternatively its greatest strength. I know that is subject to opinion, but were the wording as tight as many would have it, it would have been discarded long ago.

[MisterVeritis]

Except that the wording of the Constitution is often so ambiguous that only those who view it from the perspective of the anti-federalists support that position. The Constitution was written in a scant 116 days, less than four months (virtually overnight) and had to unite very different political factions, so the only way to accomplish that was to make its wording sufficiently vague as allow each side to see their own perspective, if not explicitly stated, at least not opposed. Many bemoan the notion that it is a living document, but the ambiguity that characterizes certain aspects of the Constitution results in a document that is constantly subject to reinterpretation. It is both its greatest weakness and alternatively its greatest strength. I know that is subject to opinion, but were the wording as tight as many would have it, it would have been discarded long ago.
It is not ambiguous.

[Chris]

Because he didn't want the Constitution to wind up being an endless list of minutiae:

“No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included.” -- Federalist 44 (before the BoR)

The nexus between the implied powers and the expressly enumerated powers is clear. Easily distinguished between a grant of general authority. Those implied powers must be necessary and proper to legislate on the expressly enumerated topics.

See also Madison's veto of public works bill: http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm


44 can be read as general powers are sufficient, that they will be expanded, into area never conceived, like the Commerce Clause to promote civil rights against the rights of others.

[Chris]

Except that the wording of the Constitution is often so ambiguous that only those who view it from the perspective of the anti-federalists support that position. The Constitution was written in a scant 116 days, less than four months (virtually overnight) and had to unite very different political factions, so the only way to accomplish that was to make its wording sufficiently vague as allow each side to see their own perspective, if not explicitly stated, at least not opposed. Many bemoan the notion that it is a living document, but the ambiguity that characterizes certain aspects of the Constitution results in a document that is constantly subject to reinterpretation. It is both its greatest weakness and alternatively its greatest strength. I know that is subject to opinion, but were the wording as tight as many would have it, it would have been discarded long ago.

It wasn't ambiguous when written or it wouldn't have been ratified.

[Newpublius]

Except that the wording of the Constitution is often so ambiguous that only those who view it from the perspective of the anti-federalists support that position. The Constitution was written in a scant 116 days, less than four months (virtually overnight) and had to unite very different political factions, so the only way to accomplish that was to make its wording sufficiently vague as allow each side to see their own perspective, if not explicitly stated, at least not opposed. Many bemoan the notion that it is a living document, but the ambiguity that characterizes certain aspects of the Constitution results in a document that is constantly subject to reinterpretation. It is both its greatest weakness and alternatively its greatest strength. I know that is subject to opinion, but were the wording as tight as many would have it, it would have been discarded long ago.

It wasn't the antifederalists view, it was their fear that it theoretically might be viewed that way, a fear that was assuaged by the federalists.

[Newpublius]

It is not ambiguous.

Or better, it is not ambiguous with respect to the issue we are discussing.

To make a football analogy if we measure out a first down and a player is down and the spot is difficult, there might be reasonable ambiguity, that's not where we are, they threw a bomb and are 80 yards in the end zone, we don't need to quibble where the 1st down marker is anymore.

[Dr. Who]

It wasn't ambiguous when written or it wouldn't have been ratified.
How do you blend the ideologies of both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists in the same document without ambiguity when you are in a hurry? There was no time to fight endlessly. The way that you do it is by leaving ambiguity so that everyone thinks that they got what they wanted. Plenty of time to fight about it after the fact.

[MisterVeritis]

How do you blend the ideologies of both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists in the same document without ambiguity when you are in a hurry? There was no time to fight endlessly. The way that you do it is by leaving ambiguity so that everyone thinks that they got what they wanted. Plenty of time to fight about it after the fact.
Choose something specific and let's see.

[Dr. Who]

Or better, it is not ambiguous with respect to the issue we are discussing.

To make a football analogy if we measure out a first down and a player is down and the spot is difficult, there might be reasonable ambiguity, that's not where we are, they threw a bomb and are 80 yards in the end zone, we don't need to quibble where the 1st down marker is anymore.
So why did Madison and Hamilton express completely contradictory interpretations of that clause?

[MisterVeritis]

So why did Madison and Hamilton express completely contradictory interpretations of that clause?
Speaking of ambiguous...

Which clause. Quote it. Tell us why you think it is ambiguous. Then we can discuss it.

[Bethere]

People who believe as you do are the cons, dude.

People who answer as I did are the only people who pass con law.

[Newpublius]

How do you blend the ideologies of both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists in the same document without ambiguity when you are in a hurry? There was no time to fight endlessly. The way that you do it is by leaving ambiguity so that everyone thinks that they got what they wanted. Plenty of time to fight about it after the fact.

You don't blend them. The anti-federalist position was not to ratify and later to at least get a Bill of Rights, which, thank God they got that. Their position was 'Don't ratify because we fear the Constitution could mean x'

Federalists, the framer/founders, said, 'Ratify because it doesn't mean x, it means y'

And the antifederalists did mostly ratify on the general principle that it actually did mean 'y'

[Dr. Who]

It wasn't ambiguous when written or it wouldn't have been ratified.
If it favored either the federalist or the anti-federalist position, it wouldn't have been ratified. It wasn't authored by one side or the other, but both. It's not the Holy Grail. It wasn't handed down by gods. It was thrown together in a hurry by men with feet of clay who had to compromise to get everyone on board.

[Newpublius]

So why did Madison and Hamilton express completely contradictory interpretations of that clause?

They didn't, that's the rub.

[MisterVeritis]

People who answer as I did are the only people who pass con law.
Charlatans instructing charlatans. We accept that. I see you as someone with no regard for what is right, only for what you can get away with. I would not want you on my side in a fight.

[Dr. Who]

You don't blend them. The anti-federalist position was not to ratify and later to at least get a Bill of Rights, which, thank God they got that. Their position was 'Don't ratify because we fear the Constitution could mean x'

Federalists, the framer/founders, said, 'Ratify because it doesn't mean x, it means y'

And the antifederalists did mostly ratify on the general principle that it actually did mean 'y'
They didn't blend, they omitted exclusionary language, thus they left ambiguity that ultimately favored the federalists.

[Bethere]

Charlatans instructing charlatans. We accept that. I see you as someone with no regard for what is right, only for what you can get away with. I would not want you on my side in a fight.

Now you have hurt my feelings.

[OGIS]

It was created to place limits on the power of the federal government. It was intended to de-centralize power at the federal level.

Citation, please!

[Dr. Who]

They didn't, that's the rub.
Five minutes after the ratification, Hamilton was arguing for a broad interpretation of Congressional powers.

[del]

It wasn't ambiguous when written or it wouldn't have been ratified.
if it wasn't ambiguous, it wouldn't have been ratified.

[Newpublius]

They didn't blend, they omitted exclusionary language, thus they left ambiguity that ultimately favored the federalists.
Nobody 'left' ambiguity' -- the document was drafted and submitted to the states. At the state ratifying conventions there were no changes. States ratified with the hope that future changes would be made, the birth of the Bill of Rights.

"To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for the common defence and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation; as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause, nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution, would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation, instead of the defined & limited one hitherto understood to belong to them; the terms "common defence and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjugating both the Constitution and laws of the several States, in all cases not specifically exempted, to be superseded by laws of Congress"

[Newpublius]

So why did Madison and Hamilton express completely contradictory interpretations of that clause?


Five minutes after the ratification, Hamilton was arguing for a broad interpretation of Congressional powers.

No, try four years. Philadelphia Convention is 1787, NY ratifying convention 1788. Report on Manufacturers is 1791

Just to return to Hamilton for a second because actually I am a Hamilton fan actually.

Hamilton had a place in downtown NYC, currently I think 26 Broadway is where his property was (Standard Oil Building). He is buried at Trinity Church. Of course he had the duel in Weehawken, NJ

He is also very well associated with Paterson, NJ, the first planned industrial city. Hamilton started the SUM - Society for Useful Manufactures using the Great Falls on the Passaic River as a power source. This is in 1791. By December 1791 Hamilton is writing the Report on Manufactures.

He is literally trying to get the federal government, not just the state government (NJ state helped SUM), to adopt a paradigm that would subsidize his vision.

[Newpublius]

Hamilton contemperaneous with the ratification of the Constitution: "The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the national legislature,shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended." Federalist 83

[Dr. Who]

Nobody 'left' ambiguity' -- the document was drafted and submitted to the states. At the state ratifying conventions there were no changes. States ratified with the hope that future changes would be made, the birth of the Bill of Rights.

"To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for the common defence and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation; as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause, nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution, would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation, instead of the defined & limited one hitherto understood to belong to them; the terms "common defence and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjugating both the Constitution and laws of the several States, in all cases not specifically exempted, to be superseded by laws of Congress"
The failure to define terms like "general welfare", left them open to the vicissitudes of language and social change. I have seen the same thing happen with traditional (i.e hundred-year-old or more) definitions in insurance policies. If you don't specifically define them, then over time popular definitions overtake traditional definitions. That's why even legislation undertakes to create definitions so that they don't lose their meaning over time. Add to that a clause that lacks specificity and you have inherent ambiguity. The law has changed in the almost three hundred years since the Constitution was ratified, but the language of the Constitution has not. Legal interpretation is more likely now to take a connotative contextual construction approach to interpretation.

[Newpublius]

They did define it with the 'special and careful enumeration of powers'

[Tahuyaman]

Citation, please!


As incredible as it is, we now live in a nation where some people actually believe that the purpose of the US Constitution is to centralize more power at the federal level.

This is almost unbelievable.

[Chris]

if it wasn't ambiguous, it wouldn't have been ratified.

The founders had nothing in common with Pelosi.

[Chris]

If it favored either the federalist or the anti-federalist position, it wouldn't have been ratified. It wasn't authored by one side or the other, but both. It's not the Holy Grail. It wasn't handed down by gods. It was thrown together in a hurry by men with feet of clay who had to compromise to get everyone on board.

Huh?

Starting with the fact the anti-federalists hijacked the federalist label.

[Tahuyaman]

The founders had nothing in common with Pelosi.

They would be embarrassed by her.

[Ethereal]

They were defenseless...

It's a mystery how a "defenseless" confederation of states were able to defeat the British during the American revolution.


...and unable to effectively trade amongst themselves.

They did trade, quite liberally. I'm not sure what your qualifier (effectively) is even supposed to imply or mean.

The mythology surrounding the constitution is just that: A mythology.

Wealthy bondholders, land owners, and merchants were the driving force behind the US Constitution, just like virtually every counter-revolutionary, anti-democratic move towards political consolidation.

It's almost always the elites who push for consolidation. Nobody can ever identify a popular groundswell of support for any of these types of reformations. Rather, it begins with elites and other special interests who manufacturer consent through superior organization, prestige, and financing.

Naturally, they cannot come right out and admit what they're doing, so they have to invent legitimate pretexts like "defense" or "order" or some benign sounding thing. And many people accept these pretexts without question, never bothering to ask themselves what the richest and most powerful members of their society stand to gain personally from it. It's just assumed, for no reason at all, that they're acting nobly and selflessly, when all of history indicates precisely otherwise.


They were a state with neither rules nor rulers, an anarchist's paradise.

They had plenty of rules, and there were certainly rulers, but most of that happened locally, closest to the people. In other words, it was much more democratic. And despite what Democrats, "liberals", and "progressives" like to claim, they largely disdain democracy. They prefer elite technocracy and bureaucracy. To them, the masses are benighted and childlike, in need of firm rulers to direct them and punish them when they misbehave. It's basically the same system of oligarchic misrule that every society in history has had to deal with, just with a democratic veneer.

[Ethereal]

We agree.
That should give you pause.

[MisterVeritis]

It was created to place limits on the power of the federal government. It was intended to de-centralize power at the federal level.

Citation, please!
He has it backwards. The states gave up a small amount of sovereignty. Power was central in each state. There was no power to decentralize. Instead, the framers places limited powers in a body they called the federal government. They enumerated the limited powers. They clearly identified why the federal government existed. It was not to be a massive, monster, a leviathan consuming all of society.

So it is up to us to fix it.

[MisterVeritis]

The failure to define terms like "general welfare", left them open to the vicissitudes of language and social change. I have seen the same thing happen with traditional (i.e hundred-year-old or more) definitions in insurance policies. If you don't specifically define them, then over time popular definitions overtake traditional definitions. That's why even legislation undertakes to create definitions so that they don't lose their meaning over time. Add to that a clause that lacks specificity and you have inherent ambiguity. The law has changed in the almost three hundred years since the Constitution was ratified, but the language of the Constitution has not. Legal interpretation is more likely now to take a connotative contextual construction approach to interpretation.
Evil people took powers they were never granted.

General welfare is clearly established in Article 1 Section 8. Every non-defense subsection or clause describes what the government may do to promote the general welfare. Building a post road promotes the general welfare. Taking a dollar from me to give 35 cents of it to you is absolutely not general welfare.

[MisterVeritis]

That should give you pause.
LOL. It is a very narrow agreement. No group hug.

[Dr. Who]

Evil people took powers they were never granted.

General welfare is clearly established in Article 1 Section 8. Every non-defense subsection or clause describes what the government may do to promote the general welfare. Building a post road promotes the general welfare. Taking a dollar from me to give 35 cents of it to you is absolutely not general welfare.
Clause 1:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

What general welfare means is basically undefined. Clauses 1 through 17 are not interdependent.

[Bethere]

It's a mystery how a "defenseless" confederation of states were able to defeat the British during the American revolution.



They did trade, quite liberally. I'm not sure what your qualifier (effectively) is even supposed to imply or mean.

The mythology surrounding the constitution is just that: A mythology.

Wealthy bondholders, land owners, and merchants were the driving force behind the US Constitution, just like virtually every counter-revolutionary, anti-democratic move towards political consolidation.

It's almost always the elites who push for consolidation. Nobody can ever identify a popular groundswell of support for any of these types of reformations. Rather, it begins with elites and other special interests who manufacturer consent through superior organization, prestige, and financing.

Naturally, they cannot come right out and admit what they're doing, so they have to invent legitimate pretexts like "defense" or "order" or some benign sounding thing. And many people accept these pretexts without question, never bothering to ask themselves what the richest and most powerful members of their society stand to gain personally from it. It's just assumed, for no reason at all, that they're acting nobly and selflessly, when all of history indicates precisely otherwise.



They had plenty of rules, and there were certainly rulers, but most of that happened locally, closest to the people. In other words, it was much more democratic. And despite what Democrats, "liberals", and "progressives" like to claim, they largely disdain democracy. They prefer elite technocracy and bureaucracy. To them, the masses are benighted and childlike, in need of firm rulers to direct them and punish them when they misbehave. It's basically the same system of oligarchic misrule that every society in history has had to deal with, just with a democratic veneer.

The defenseless Americans 'beat' the British because of the french blockade, french funding, french mercenaries, and french artillery.

Thanks for asking.

[Bethere]

Evil people took powers they were never granted.

General welfare is clearly established in Article 1 Section 8. Every non-defense subsection or clause describes what the government may do to promote the general welfare. Building a post road promotes the general welfare. Taking a dollar from me to give 35 cents of it to you is absolutely not general welfare.

You lost this argument in court over 100 years ago.

[Peter1469]

Clause 1:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

What general welfare means is basically undefined. Clauses 1 through 17 are not interdependent.

It has been covered above. The clauses in Art 1 section 8 are the powers the States ceded to the federal government. The Founders never would have created an all-powerful federal government. Also foreign commentators at and around the ratification recognized this brand of federalism and wrote about it.

[Bethere]

They would be embarrassed by her.

Imagine how they'd feel about Trump.

[Dr. Who]

It has been covered above. The clauses in Art 1 section 8 are the powers the States ceded to the federal government. The Founders never would have created an all-powerful federal government. Also foreign commentators at and around the ratification recognized this brand of federalism and wrote about it.
Times change and the concept of general welfare changes with them. The fact is that the Constitution did not prescribe the term general welfare, but left it open to future generations. Perhaps it was deliberate, because had it not been open, it certainly would have been amended.

[Tahuyaman]

One thing which hasn't changed is the fact that the constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government.

[Peter1469]

Times change and the concept of general welfare changes with them. The fact is that the Constitution did not prescribe the term general welfare, but left it open to future generations. Perhaps it was deliberate, because had it not been open, it certainly would have been amended.

The Founders created two ways to change the Constitution.

Whim is not one of them. That theory is called the Living Constitution theory. Essentially that theory is a rejection of federalism and the concept of the US Constitution.

[Dr. Who]

One thing which hasn't changed is the fact that the constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government.

So the ideology of the founding fathers should forevermore dictate a future that they could never have conceived? The only reason that the Constitution continues to prevail is attributable to its ambiguities. Had it been more defined, it would have been replaced or amended beyond all recognition. The fact is that society is utterly different than it was in 1787. You cannot apply the politics and social mores of a 1787 just former colony on a 2017 independent nation that has evolved over almost 300 years.

[Dr. Who]

The Founders created two ways to change the Constitution.

Whim is not one of them. That theory is called the Living Constitution theory. Essentially that theory is a rejection of federalism and the concept of the US Constitution.
Then the Constitution should likely have been tossed at least 60 or 70 years ago. It wasn't that rigid, so it wasn't abandoned.

[resister]

So the ideology of the founding fathers should forevermore dictate a future that they could never have conceived? The only reason that the Constitution continues to prevail is attributable to its ambiguities. Had it been more defined, it would have been replaced or amended beyond all recognition. The fact is that society is utterly different than it was in 1787. You cannot apply the politics and social mores of a 1787 just former colony on a 2017 independent nation that has evolved over almost 300 years.
The principles remain just as valid today. Democrats, by and large want it to just go away, it sounds like you feel that way?

[Newpublius]

So the ideology of the founding fathers should forevermore dictate a future that they could never have conceived? The only reason that the Constitution continues to prevail is attributable to its ambiguities. Had it been more defined, it would have been replaced or amended beyond all recognition. The fact is that society is utterly different than it was in 1787. You cannot apply the politics and social mores of a 1787 just former colony on a 2017 independent nation that has evolved over almost 300 years.

5 unelected judges should?

"Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare.' Constitution, art. 1, 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65 , 56 S. Ct. 312, 319, 102 A.L.R. 914. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision."

'Settled by decision' and of course the specter of court packing loomed.

The 'Hamtonian' paradigm simply cannot be reconciled with Hamilton at the Convention.

Its not just wrongly decided its academically dishonest.

The point about a constitution is that its the constitution until lawfully amended.

[Dr. Who]

The principles remain just as valid today. Democrats, by and large want it to just go away, it sounds like you feel that way?
I suspect that you would have little in common with someone in 1787, nor would I. If you had a substance abuse problem in 1787, you would have been left to die and people would have said that you were immoral and deserved to die, unless you were wealthy.

[Dr. Who]

5 unelected judges should?

"Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare.' Constitution, art. 1, 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65 , 56 S. Ct. 312, 319, 102 A.L.R. 914. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision."

'Settled by decision' and of course the specter of court packing loomed.

The 'Hamtonian' paradigm simply cannot be reconciled with Hamilton at the Convention.

Its not just wrongly decided its academically dishonest.

The point about a constitution is that its the constitution until lawfully amended.

Those same founding fathers built in judicial review. They clearly respected the judiciary over legislators.

[resister]

I suspect that you would have little in common with someone in 1787, nor would I. If you had a substance abuse problem in 1787, you would have been left to die and people would have said that you were immoral and deserved to die, unless you were wealthy.
Not really to different from the stigma that still exist today, is it? Did you read a book about how they viewed substance abuse in those days?

[Newpublius]

Those same founding fathers built in judicial review. They clearly respected the judiciary over legislators.

Decisions were to be impartially decided of course. Not only did FDR lose initially, he threatened to pack the court and the resulting legal logic is clearly deterministic drivel.

[Dr. Who]

Not really to different from the stigma that still exist today, is it? Did you read a book about how they viewed substance abuse in those days?
All weakness in those days was viewed as immorality. I have read many books. In those days people with mental illness were suspected of being under the influence of the devil. The mentally ill were warehoused in unbelievably horrific circumstances and anyone who didn't look normal who wasn't killed at birth was hidden away and it was assumed that anyone who had such a child was being repaid for some immoral act. People were not very nice back then.

[resister]

All weakness in those days was viewed as immorality. I have read many books. In those days people with mental illness were suspected of being under the influence of the devil. The mentally ill were warehoused in unbelievably horrific circumstances and anyone who didn't look normal who wasn't killed at birth was hidden away and it was assumed that anyone who had such a child was being repaid for some immoral act. People were not very nice back then.And they aint got a whole lot nicer either! At least they did not practice mass, long term incarceration.

[Newpublius]

All weakness in those days was viewed as immorality. I have read many books. In those days people with mental illness were suspected of being under the influence of the devil. The mentally ill were warehoused in unbelievably horrific circumstances and anyone who didn't look normal who wasn't killed at birth was hidden away and it was assumed that anyone who had such a child was being repaid for some immoral act. People were not very nice back then.

It wasn't too long ago that they were doing labotomies. The practice of medicine has surely improved. One of the symbols of breast cancer awareness is Abigail Adams who underwent a procedure that woukd make your blood curdle. If you get a chance read about how they treated Washington the day he died.....crazy stuff. I can see how 18th century approach to mental disabilities may have sought causation in superstition or the devil. People really didn't know better and frankly even of they did, they didn't have something like Risperdal.

[Dr. Who]

Decisions were to be impartially decided of course. Not only did FDR lose initially, he threatened to pack the court and the resulting legal logic is clearly deterministic drivel.
FDR would be a Republican today. Party politics are fluid and ultimately meaningless. The inherent issues that create corruption in government are attributable to political agendas and FDR played all sides against the middle. There is no Constitution that can or could ever prevent a power seeker from attaining power or from manipulating the judiciary by appointing the like minded. The only hope is that the appointees are more jurists than partisans.

[Dr. Who]

And they aint got a whole lot nicer either! At least they did not practice mass, long term incarceration.
What you are seeing is capitalism at its worst. The prison industrial system is just another way to make money.

[Ethereal]

The defenseless Americans 'beat' the British because of the french blockade, french funding, french mercenaries, and french artillery.

Thanks for asking.

Your point being?

[resister]

What you are seeing is capitalism at its worst. The prison industrial system is just another way to make money.But capitalism sounds sorta partisan, the mass incarceration is a bipartisan addiction!

[Ethereal]

So the ideology of the founding fathers should forevermore dictate a future that they could never have conceived?

You cannot hold up their creation (the constitution) as having authority while ignoring their intent. If their intent is not authoritative, then neither is their creation.

[Dr. Who]

You cannot hold up their creation (the constitution) as having authority while ignoring their intent. If their intent is not authoritative, then neither is their creation.

Even intent needs to be viewed contextually. Article 8, clause 7 discusses the postal service. That is a service that will soon disappear. It's an example of creeping anachronism in the Constitution.

[OGIS]

The defenseless Americans 'beat' the British because of the french blockade, french funding, french mercenaries, and french artillery.

Thanks for asking.


And don't forget that King George III was increasingly ill. It's a safe bet that both he and his court were preoccupied with his health, and the war in the Colonies must have caused a lot of stress.

[resister]

You and bethere should go visit England!

[Ethereal]

Even intent needs to be viewed contextually. Article 8, clause 7 discusses the postal service. That is a service that will soon disappear. It's an example of creeping anachronism in the Constitution.

What's your point?

[Ethereal]

And don't forget that King George III was increasingly ill. It's a safe bet that both he and his court were preoccupied with his health, and the war in the Colonies must have caused a lot of stress.
I wonder what other factors we can credit with our victory besides the Americans who bravely fought in the revolution.

[Chris]

Even intent needs to be viewed contextually. Article 8, clause 7 discusses the postal service. That is a service that will soon disappear. It's an example of creeping anachronism in the Constitution.

Textually, using the meaning of the words as used when ratified and amended.

[Tahuyaman]

So the ideology of the founding fathers should forevermore dictate a future that they could never have conceived? The only reason that the Constitution continues to prevail is attributable to its ambiguities. Had it been more defined, it would have been replaced or amended beyond all recognition. The fact is that society is utterly different than it was in 1787. You cannot apply the politics and social mores of a 1787 just former colony on a 2017 independent nation that has evolved over almost 300 years.


That's why they included an amendment process. They also made that process an arduous one. The constitution was never supposed to be a " living and breathing" document which automatically casts off elements based the politically correct whims of the moment.

[MisterVeritis]

FDR would be a Republican today. Party politics are fluid and ultimately meaningless. The inherent issues that create corruption in government are attributable to political agendas and FDR played all sides against the middle. There is no Constitution that can or could ever prevent a power seeker from attaining power or from manipulating the judiciary by appointing the like minded. The only hope is that the appointees are more jurists than partisans.
He was a socialist then. He would be a socialist today.

[Dr. Who]

That's why they included an amendment process. They also made that process an arduous one. The constitution was never supposed to be a " living and breathing" document which automatically casts off elements based the politically correct whims of the moment.
Well, if Article 1 had stopped at Clause 17 there would a lot more amendments today, or perhaps even another constitution, but they included the "elastic clause" so that in the words of James Madison, it would not be a "dead letter":


Clause 18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[Tahuyaman]

He was a socialist then. He would be a socialist today.

FDR would not be a Republican today. I don't know how anyone could make a solid argument in support of that idea.

[Chris]

Well, if Article 1 had stopped at Clause 17 there would a lot more amendments today, or perhaps even another constitution, but they included the "elastic clause" so that in the words of James Madison, it would not be a "dead letter":


Clause 18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Agree, but necessary and proper within reason and not willy nilly as it's gone.

[Dr. Who]

He was a socialist then. He would be a socialist today.
He was no socialist. He was a pragmatist and fundamentally a capitalist who used whatever means that were at his disposal to restore and protect capitalism in America and prevent future economic collapses.

[MisterVeritis]

Well, if Article 1 had stopped at Clause 17 there would a lot more amendments today, or perhaps even another constitution, but they included the "elastic clause" so that in the words of James Madison, it would not be a "dead letter":
Clause 18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Do you understand the clause? I do not believe you do.

[MisterVeritis]

He was no socialist. He was a pragmatist and fundamentally a capitalist who used whatever means that were at his disposal to restore and protect capitalism in America and prevent future economic collapses.
He was a socialist who surrounded himself with socialists. And Obama is an Islamofascist who surrounded himself with Islamofascists. I believe you are a socialist.

[MisterVeritis]

Agree, but necessary and proper within reason and not willy nilly as it's gone.
You fail to understand the clause.

[Chris]

You fail to understand the clause.

You fail to convince me.

What I mean is the legislature ought to be able to show reasonably how a law is necessary and proper to the powers granted, not merely to some politician's agenda.

[MisterVeritis]

You fail to convince me.
What I mean is the legislature ought to be able to show reasonably how a law is necessary and proper to the powers granted, not merely to some politician's agenda.
A plain reading makes it clear.

Clause 18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The legislature may make any law necessary to implement the subsections of article 1 section 8. Your comment above tells me you might agree.

[Chris]

A plain reading makes it clear.

Clause 18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The legislature may make any law necessary to implement the subsections of article 1 section 8. Your comment above tells me you might agree.


Yes, saying the same.

[AZ Jim]

FDR should have been declared an enemy and hanged.FDR was my first President. He was beloved by almost all. When he passed they took us out of school and held a moment of silence in his honor before sending us home. When I arrived there I found my Grandparents in tears (they lived with us, lot's of Grandparents did in those times). The world almost stopped. The only people who don't like FDR are those who didn't live when he was our President and have read the young fools bullshit about him. How does one win the Presidency FOUR times if he wasn't great as our President. He won his fourth term in Nov. 1944 but unfortunately did not live to serve it. According to modern conservatives FDR was horrible because he cared about and acted to the needs of people.

[Chris]

FDR was my first President. He was beloved by almost all. When he passed they took us out of school and held a moment of silence in his honor before sending us home. When I arrived there I found my Grandparents in tears (they lived with us, lot's of Grandparents did in those times). The world almost stopped. The only people who don't like FDR are those who didn't live when he was our President and have read the young fools bullshit about him. How does one win the Presidency FOUR times if he wasn't great as our President. He won his fourth term in Nov. 1944 but unfortunately did not live to serve it. According to modern conservatives FDR was horrible because he cared about and acted to the needs of people.

Similar could be said of Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin.



According to modern conservatives FDR was horrible because he cared about and acted to the needs of people.

Because he acted outside the Constitution and was an authoritarian.

[Peter1469]

I suspect that you would have little in common with someone in 1787, nor would I. If you had a substance abuse problem in 1787, you would have been left to die and people would have said that you were immoral and deserved to die, unless you were wealthy.

The constitution largely is a timeless document based on governing principles. They are valid today as they were then.

[MisterVeritis]

FDR was my first President. He was beloved by almost all. When he passed they took us out of school and held a moment of silence in his honor before sending us home. When I arrived there I found my Grandparents in tears (they lived with us, lot's of Grandparents did in those times). The world almost stopped. The only people who don't like FDR are those who didn't live when he was our President and have read the young fools bullshit about him. How does one win the Presidency FOUR times if he wasn't great as our President. He won his fourth term in Nov. 1944 but unfortunately did not live to serve it. According to modern conservatives FDR was horrible because he cared about and acted to the needs of people.
FDR proved the point you can harm the people while telling them you are doing all you can for them and the fools will love you.

[AZ Jim]

Similar could be said of Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin.




Because he acted outside the Constitution and was an authoritarian.Only a young idiot would make such a comparison. You amaze me in your lack of knowledge.

[AZ Jim]

The constitution largely is a timeless document based on governing principles. They are valid today as they were then.I absolutely disagree but if you are so ignorant as to the differences in circumstances between those times and today, I can understand your position.

[Peter1469]

Decisions were to be impartially decided of course. Not only did FDR lose initially, he threatened to pack the court and the resulting legal logic is clearly deterministic drivel.

Yes. Court packing scheme in 1936. SCOTUS gets the message and discovers that the Commerce Clause lets any New Deal legislation suddenly become constitutional. The Commerce Clause was unfettered until 1995 in Lopez, where SCOTUS told Congress that the Commerce Clause can't justify the gun free zone legislation. Obamacare also hit the Commerce Clause. The liberal judges signed onto that reading- that the Commerce Clause could not justify Obamacare. But the court looked to the taxing power- which is strange since Congress and Obama said it was not a tax over and over. But it is a hard decision to kill any legislation based poorly on the Commerce Clause.

[Peter1469]

FDR was a democratic socialist then and would be today.


FDR would be a Republican today. Party politics are fluid and ultimately meaningless. The inherent issues that create corruption in government are attributable to political agendas and FDR played all sides against the middle. There is no Constitution that can or could ever prevent a power seeker from attaining power or from manipulating the judiciary by appointing the like minded. The only hope is that the appointees are more jurists than partisans.

[Peter1469]

What you are seeing is capitalism at its worst. The prison industrial system is just another way to make money.

Contract administration is the problem. Or society knows what it is doing so far as prisons go.

If we want to rehab prisoners it costs money for proper programs. Whether the prison employees are contractors or officers makes zero difference - assuming the government properly administers the contract.

[Dr. Who]

FDR was a democratic socialist then and would be today.
The Democratic socialists of the 1940's would be the moderate wing of the Republican party today. They are every bit as big government as the Democrats.

[Ethereal]

FDR was my first President. He was beloved by almost all. When he passed they took us out of school and held a moment of silence in his honor before sending us home. When I arrived there I found my Grandparents in tears (they lived with us, lot's of Grandparents did in those times). The world almost stopped. The only people who don't like FDR are those who didn't live when he was our President and have read the young fools bull$#@! about him. How does one win the Presidency FOUR times if he wasn't great as our President. He won his fourth term in Nov. 1944 but unfortunately did not live to serve it. According to modern conservatives FDR was horrible because he cared about and acted to the needs of people.

FDR was a corporate stooge and a warmonger. The fact that he managed to fool lots of people does not change that.

[Ethereal]

Only a young idiot would make such a comparison. You amaze me in your lack of knowledge.
You were brainwashed into worshiping an authoritarian and a collectivist, like so many simpletons throughout history.

[Chris]

Only a young idiot would make such a comparison. You amaze me in your lack of knowledge.

Don't insult when you lack historical knowledge, Jim.

HITLER’S MUTUAL ADMIRATION SOCIETY (http://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/hitlers-mutual-admiration-society/)


...In fact, given that FDR and Hitler shared much of the same economic philosophy and were implementing many of the same economic policies, it’s not too surprising that Hitler sent the following letter to U.S. Ambassador Thomas Dodd on March 14, 1934:



The Reich chancellor requests Mr. Dodd to present his greetings to President Roosevelt. He congratulates the president upon his heroic effort in the interest of the American people. The president’s successful struggle against economic distress is being followed by the entire German people with interest and admiration. The Reich chancellor is in accord with the president that the virtues of sense of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline must be the supreme rule of the whole nation. This moral demand, which the president is addressing to every single citizen, is only the quintessence of German philosophy of the state, expressed in the motto “The public weal before the private gain.”


Toland reminds us of the high esteem in which Hitler held President Roosevelt:



Hitler had genuine admiration for the decisive manner in which the President had taken over the reins of government. “I have sympathy for Mr. Roosevelt,” he told a correspondent of the New York Times two months later, “because he marches straight toward his objectives over Congress, lobbies and bureaucracy.” Hitler went on to note that he was the sole leader in Europe who expressed “understanding of the methods and motives of President Roosevelt.”


Hitler was not Roosevelt’s only admirer. Benito Mussolini, who had led Italy into fascism, an economic philosophy that called for government control over economic activity, including government-business partnerships, said that he admired FDR because he, like Mussolini, was a “social fascist.” As Srdja Trifkovic put it in his article “FDR and Mussolini: A Tale of Two Fascists,”



Roosevelt and his “Brain Trust,” the architects of the New Deal, were fascinated by Italy’s fascism — a term which was not perjorative at the time. In America, it was seen as a form of economic nationalism built around consensus planning by the established elites in government, business, and labor.


...

Three New Deals: Why the Nazis and Fascists Loved FDR (https://mises.org/library/three-new-deals-why-nazis-and-fascists-loved-fdr)


When Roosevelt took office in March 1933, he received from Congress an extraordinary delegation of powers to cope with the Depression.



The broad-ranging powers granted to Roosevelt by Congress, before that body went into recess, were unprecedented in times of peace. Through this "delegation of powers," Congress had, in effect, temporarily done away with itself as the legislative branch of government. The only remaining check on the executive was the Supreme Court. In Germany, a similar process allowed Hitler to assume legislative power after the Reichstag burned down in a suspected case of arson on February 28, 1933. (p. 18).
The Nazi press enthusiastically hailed the early New Deal measures: America, like the Reich, had decisively broken with the "uninhibited frenzy of market speculation." The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler's own dictatorial Führerprinzip" (p. 190).


Mussolini, who did not allow his work as dictator to interrupt his prolific journalism, wrote a glowing review of Roosevelt's Looking Forward. He found "reminiscent of fascism … the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices"; and, in another review, this time of Henry Wallace's New Frontiers, Il Duce found the Secretary of Agriculture's program similar to his own corporativism (pp. 23-24).

Roosevelt never had much use for Hitler, but Mussolini was another matter. "'I don't mind telling you in confidence,' FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, 'that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman'" (p. 31). Rexford Tugwell, a leading adviser to the president, had difficulty containing his enthusiasm for Mussolini's program to modernize Italy: "It's the cleanest … most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious" (p. 32, quoting Tugwell).

...John T. Flynn's great book of 1944, As We Go Marching.

Flynn, comparing the New Deal with fascism, foresaw a problem that still faces us today.



But willingly or unwillingly, Flynn argued, the New Deal had put itself into the position of needing a state of permanent crisis or, indeed, permanent war to justify its social interventions. "It is born in crisis, lives on crises, and cannot survive the era of crisis…. Hitler's story is the same." … Flynn's prognosis for the regime of his enemy Roosevelt sounds more apt today than when he made it in 1944 … "We must have enemies," he wrote in As We Go Marching. "They will become an economic necessity for us." (pp. 186, 191)

Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hitler-mussolini-roosevelt)


...In the North American Review in 1934, the progressive writer Roger Shaw described the New Deal as “Fascist means to gain liberal ends.” He wasn’t hallucinating. FDR’s adviser Rexford Tugwell wrote in his diary that Mussolini had done “many of the things which seem to me necessary.” Lorena Hickok, a close confidante of Eleanor Roosevelt who lived in the White House for a spell, wrote approvingly of a local official who had said, “If [President] Roosevelt were actually a dictator, we might get somewhere.” She added that if she were younger, she’d like to lead “the Fascist Movement in the United States.” At the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the cartel-creating agency at the heart of the early New Deal, one report declared forthrightly, “The Fascist Principles are very similar to those we have been evolving here in America.”

Roosevelt himself called Mussolini “admirable” and professed that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.” The admiration was mutual. In a laudatory review of Roosevelt’s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.… Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.” The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” and “the development toward an authoritarian state” based on the “demand that collective good be put before individual self-interest.”

In Rome, Berlin, and D.C., there was an affinity for military metaphors and military structures. Fascists, National Socialists, and New Dealers had all been young during World War I, and they looked back with longing at the experiments in wartime planning. In his first inaugural address, Roosevelt summoned the nation: “If we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army.… I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis — broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”

...

[Chris]

I absolutely disagree but if you are so ignorant as to the differences in circumstances between those times and today, I can understand your position.

You need do more than merely call people ignorant and idiots, Jim.

[AZ Jim]

Don't insult when you lack historical knowledge, Jim.

HITLER’S MUTUAL ADMIRATION SOCIETY (http://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/hitlers-mutual-admiration-society/)



Three New Deals: Why the Nazis and Fascists Loved FDR (https://mises.org/library/three-new-deals-why-nazis-and-fascists-loved-fdr)



Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hitler-mussolini-roosevelt)All opinion pieces. I repeat my original charge.

[AZ Jim]

You need do more than merely call people ignorant and idiots, Jim.I'm satisfied with my position. How in hell could your "founders" imagine microwave ovens, rockets, TV sets, Artificial limbs etc. Do you not think things would not have influenced their words and deeds? Hell, I can remember when Dick Tracy had a wrist radio which seemed impossible and that was only in the early 1940's.

[Tahuyaman]

I'm still amazed that some people here actually believe the purpose of the US Constitution was to centralize more power at the federal level.

[Chris]

I'm still amazed that some people here actually believe the purpose of the US Constitution was to centralize more power at the federal level.

Because it was. It centralized power a great deal more that the Articles of Confederation. I don't think the intent was anywhere near what the government has become.

[Chris]

All opinion pieces. I repeat my original charge.

No, Jim, they were statements by the people involved including FDR. Try reading.

[Bethere]

I'm still amazed that some people here actually believe the purpose of the US Constitution was to centralize more power at the federal level.

That's the only reason te constitution was needed or else the articles of confederation would be the law of the land.

[Chris]

No, Jim, they were statements by the people involved including FDR. Try reading.

In insulting you forgot to state just what that position is.

[Bethere]

You need do more than merely call people ignorant and idiots, Jim.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Chris http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1983455#post1983455)
Don't insult when you lack historical knowledge, Jim.

[Chris]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Chris http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1983455#post1983455)
Don't insult when you lack historical knowledge, Jim.

That's obviously a fact. Even when historically factual statement are presented.

[Tahuyaman]

I'd be willing to bet that there are many here who believe that the purpose of the Constitution was to place limits upon our rights and not the power of government.

[Tahuyaman]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Chris http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1983455#post1983455)
Don't insult when you lack historical knowledge, Jim.

What's your beef with Chris?

[Tahuyaman]

That's the only reason te constitution was needed or else the articles of confederation would be the law of the land.

You don't know the US constitution from your morning constitutional.

[OGIS]

He was no socialist. He was a pragmatist and fundamentally a capitalist who used whatever means that were at his disposal to restore and protect capitalism in America and prevent future economic collapses.

Most everything I've ever read (from conservative authors as well as libs) has FDR actually forestalling a violent socialist revolution.

[Chris]

Most everything I've ever read (from conservative authors as well as libs) has FDR actually forestalling a violent socialist revolution.

Like what have you read?

[OGIS]

Like what have you read?

I don't remember, specifically. This was two decades ago.

[Peter1469]

The Democratic socialists of the 1940's would be the moderate wing of the Republican party today. They are every bit as big government as the Democrats.

Maybe. I left the GOP in 2006 because they were spending like drunken democrats.

[Peter1469]

I'm satisfied with my position. How in hell could your "founders" imagine microwave ovens, rockets, TV sets, Artificial limbs etc. Do you not think things would not have influenced their words and deeds? Hell, I can remember when Dick Tracy had a wrist radio which seemed impossible and that was only in the early 1940's.

What do those things have to do with federalism?

[Chris]

What's your beef with Chris?

Fake beef.

[Tahuyaman]

What do those things have to do with federalism?

Its obvious that when you speak out in favor of federalism, most people think you are advocating for the opposite.

[Peter1469]

Its obvious that when you speak out in favor of federalism, most people think you are advocating for the opposite.

As I say, public schools.

[Tahuyaman]

As I say, public schools.


They think federalism is consolidating and centralizing more power at the federal level.

[Peter1469]

They think federalism is consolidating and centralizing more power at the federal level.

They think that xenophobia is a common trait today too.

lol

[Tahuyaman]

As I say, public schools.

One of the guys who believes that was educated in a long past era where our public schools had high standards. He must have been sleeping in class during those lessons.

[Tahuyaman]

They think that xenophobia is a common trait today too.

lol

They think that is an irrational fear of xylophones.

[Ethereal]

I'm still amazed that some people here actually believe the purpose of the US Constitution was to centralize more power at the federal level.
You are amazed at many things which are not amazing at all.

[Chris]

They think federalism is consolidating and centralizing more power at the federal level.

That's the fault of those who sought to centralize power in a federal government. The anti-federalist were for decentralized federalism.

[Peter1469]

One of the guys who believes that was educated in a long past era where our public schools had high standards. He must have been sleeping in class during those lessons.One of my old bosses (Harvard undergrad / law school) calls public schools "common schools." :smiley:

[OGIS]

You are amazed at many things which are not amazing at all.

I guess I was brainwashed from early 1950's grade school on, obviously by a vast conspiracy involving thousands of communist agents who mass-infiltrated all the school districts over the entire country. This effort also apparently included every history textbook publisher and historian in the country. Because every single historical analysis that touched on the formation of the country centered around the consistent concept that the Articles of Confederation were simply too weak to allow a "united" states to effectively function.

Only an anointed elite of Real Patriots understand that this was all simply propaganda to brainwash the masses. That never-sufficiently-damned Goldstein Obama and his time machine were certainly effective, weren't they?

[Chris]

I guess I was brainwashed from early 1950's grade school on, obviously by a vast conspiracy involving thousands of communist agents who mass-infiltrated all the school districts over the entire country. This effort also apparently included every history textbook publisher and historian in the country. Because every single historical analysis that touched on the formation of the country centered around the consistent concept that the Articles of Confederation were simply too weak to allow a "united" states to effectively function.

Only an anointed elite of Real Patriots understand that this was all simply propaganda to brainwash the masses. That never-sufficiently-damned Goldstein Obama and his time machine were certainly effective, weren't they?

Function, you mean, to the benefit of a few. Democratic decentralized government spread the power and the wealth.

[Ransom]

The main reason the Constitution was created was the promotion of general welfare, according to its preamble.

If general welfare was "main", what would be your interpretation concerning common defense?

[Tahuyaman]

You are amazed at many things which are not amazing at all.

I'm amazed that you seem to so easily amuse yourself.

[OGIS]

If general welfare was "main", what would be your interpretation concerning common defense?


Effective defense generally leads to the increased welfare of the people being defended. Unless you believe in war for its own sale, the general welfare of your population is the purpose of defense.

The ONLY ethical justification for any government is the welfare of the people being ruled by that government. Any other purpose is simply legalized plunder.

[MisterVeritis]

Clause 1:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

What general welfare means is basically undefined. Clauses 1 through 17 are not interdependent.
All wannabe tyrants speak as you do.

If you were right the entire Article 1 could be reduced to the simple words, "The Congress can do whatever it wants to do."

[Tahuyaman]

If general welfare was "main", what would be your interpretation concerning common defense?

I'm sure they can find a way to misrepresent that one too.

[Tahuyaman]

Effective defense generally leads to the increased welfare of the people being defended. Unless you believe in war for its own sale, the general welfare of your population is the purpose of defense.

The ONLY ethical justification for any government is the welfare of the people being ruled by that government. Any other purpose is simply legalized plunder.

We don't elect a ruling class. We elect people to govern, not "rule".

[Chris]

The main problem with "general welfare" is too many leave off "general" the meaning of which is not ambiguous at all.

[OGIS]

All wannabe tyrants speak as you do.

And wannabe serial-killers/mass-murderers/internet-tough-guys speak as you do.

[donttread]

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America." (James Madison)

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one....(James Madison)

"With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." (James Madison)

"Our tenet ever was . . . that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action." (Thomas Jefferson)

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." (Thomas Jefferson)


The notion that the founders bothered to write the enumerated powers only to negate them with the "General Welfare" and "Commerce" clauses is a ridiculius notion made up by ultra libs. Typically if you look to their quotes the ultra libs have zero support for their made up interpretations.

[Peter1469]

The notion that the founders bothered to write the enumerated powers only to negate them with the "General Welfare" and "Commerce" clauses is a ridiculius notion made up by ultra libs. Typically if you look to their quotes the ultra libs have zero support for their made up interpretations.

Bravo!

[MisterVeritis]

And wannabe serial-killers/mass-murderers/internet-tough-guys speak as you do.
Don't be stupid. They kill for the thrill. For me, it is strictly business. When you do great harm to the nation like Crooked and S. Rice did the state must execute you in self-defense.

You coup supporters will have to settle for long prison sentences.

[Dr. Who]

The main problem with "general welfare" is too many leave off "general" the meaning of which is not ambiguous at all.

The legal definition of "the general welfare" is currently defined as providing for the welfare of the general public, which is pretty much universally seen is a basic goal of government.

[Peter1469]

The legal definition of "the general welfare" is currently defined as providing for the welfare of the general public, which is pretty much universally seen is a basic goal of government.

Federalism was America's gift to the world. Now, even Americans don't know what it means.

[Dr. Who]

Federalism was America's gift to the world. Now, even Americans don't know what it means.
The Constitution was undermined by the activities of greedy and corrupt businessmen who endeavored to use and abuse the land and the people for their own enrichment and to further buy every corrupt politician that they could find so as to avoid obstruction. Throwing the people to the wolves has never been an option. People shouldn't have to die for a political ideology that failed to take humanity's worst nature into consideration. The Constitution's achilles heel was and still is the fundamental corruption in people who seek major wealth and power.

[Chris]

The legal definition of "the general welfare" is currently defined as providing for the welfare of the general public, which is pretty much universally seen is a basic goal of government.

Yes, just keep it general. IOW, the government cannot COnstitutionally, help some at the expense of others.

[Peter1469]

The Constitution was undermined several times in history. I am of course speaking about what the Constitution really should be.

For all intensive purposes the Constitution is dead. Killed by people who rejected federalism.



The Constitution was undermined by the activities of greedy and corrupt businessmen who endeavored to use and abuse the land and the people for their own enrichment and to further buy every corrupt politician that they could find so as to avoid obstruction. Throwing the people to the wolves has never been an option. People shouldn't have to die for a political ideology that failed to take humanity's worst nature into consideration. The Constitution's achilles heel was and still is the fundamental corruption in people who seek major wealth and power.

[Chris]

The Constitution was undermined by the activities of greedy and corrupt businessmen who endeavored to use and abuse the land and the people for their own enrichment and to further buy every corrupt politician that they could find so as to avoid obstruction. Throwing the people to the wolves has never been an option. People shouldn't have to die for a political ideology that failed to take humanity's worst nature into consideration. The Constitution's achilles heel was and still is the fundamental corruption in people who seek major wealth and power.

And they did that by attaining centralized power over the local democracies of the state. You, as a liberal, always leave it out that the rich, while rich, depend on the power of the government.

[Dr. Who]

And they did that by attaining centralized power over the local democracies of the state. You, as a liberal, always leave it out that the rich, while rich, depend on the power of the government.
The corrupt also operate in states and in municipalities.

[Ethereal]

The corrupt also operate in states and in municipalities.
But on a smaller scale, which makes them weaker and less effectual.

[Chris]

But on a smaller scale, which makes them weaker and less effectual.

Precisely.

And the smaller the scale the more reputation plays a part. You're not stealing from the masses but your neighbors.

[Ethereal]

Precisely.

And the smaller the scale the more reputation plays a part. You're not stealing from the masses but your neighbors.

It's also much easier to confront corrupt officials and agents when they're closer to you.

[MisterVeritis]

The Constitution was undermined by the activities of greedy and corrupt businessmen who endeavored to use and abuse the land and the people for their own enrichment and to further buy every corrupt politician that they could find so as to avoid obstruction. Throwing the people to the wolves has never been an option. People shouldn't have to die for a political ideology that failed to take humanity's worst nature into consideration. The Constitution's achilles heel was and still is the fundamental corruption in people who seek major wealth and power.
Never go full Marxist.

[Subdermal]

The legal definition of "the general welfare" is currently defined as providing for the welfare of the general public, which is pretty much universally seen is a basic goal of government.

:facepalm:

http://www.mrc.org/sites/default/files/images/RewritingTheBible_Cover72_1.jpg

[donttread]

The legal definition of "the general welfare" is currently defined as providing for the welfare of the general public, which is pretty much universally seen is a basic goal of government.


"Current definition" implies interpretation . How long has this current defintion been in existence?

[donttread]

It's also much easier to confront corrupt officials and agents when they're closer to you.

Yup. Also a state can change direction from failed policy to something that might work much more quickly than the feds who are still kicking long dead horses like the "war on drugs"

[donttread]

Federalism was America's gift to the world. Now, even Americans don't know what it means.

Very well put. Jefferson told us that the price of freedom was "Eternal Vigilance" . But somewhere along the way we quit making the payments. We need the Constitution taught in schools again. Even if it has to be an add on to the federally dominated ciriculum.

[donttread]

Effective defense generally leads to the increased welfare of the people being defended. Unless you believe in war for its own sale, the general welfare of your population is the purpose of defense.

The ONLY ethical justification for any government is the welfare of the people being ruled by that government. Any other purpose is simply legalized plunder.

Our government long ago took our Military beyond "defense" and applied them to the unwritten call only they and the megacorps hear for a "general offense."

[donttread]

All wannabe tyrants speak as you do.

If you were right the entire Article 1 could be reduced to the simple words, "The Congress can do whatever it wants to do."

Exactly. But they did not write the enumerated powers for "carpel tunnel" rehab. They are there for a reason. As was the way the federal government had to disperse taxes without "pork" or blackmailing the states prior to the 16th Amendment , or death warrant of the Republic, as it rightful should be called.

[Dr. Who]

"Current definition" implies interpretation . How long has this current defintion been in existence?

I don't know, but I also don't have an 18th century legal dictionary.

[Chris]

I don't know, but I also don't have an 18th century legal dictionary.

Easily obtained. And sice dictionaries are descriptive of usage, you can read documents from back then to find meaning.