Federalist Paper #41

[hugo]

The concluding paragraphs:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sadly, the anti-federalist turned out to be right. Starting with the New Deal the socialists have destroyed the Constitution.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Okay...I'll bite.

 

So Hugo, in your own words, what are you trying to say here?

[hugo]

Glad to see you back. During the ratification process those who opposed the Constitution (the anti-federalists) argued the general welfare clause would enable the federal government to basically have a blank check to do whatever it wished in the name of the general welfare or common defense of the U.S. Madison pointed out the enumeration of powers in Article I Section 8 are the only legitimate functions of the federal government.

 

I always find this quote amusing

 

"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been

surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely,

people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject1, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1930

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Nice to find you still here as well.

 

Although I am mostly a Constitutionalist, I am not a STRICT one. To me, to limit oneself to strict interpretation would preclude the very essence of what the document stood for.

 

To me, the Constitution is a living document subject to amendment, change and revision as befits the citizens living under it at any given time.

 

I think is was impossible for the Founders to foresee any of the complexities of our society as it exists today.

 

Do I think that government has run amok in its size and scope? Sure. However, I cannot allow myself the luxury of actually believing that everything can be reduced to a simple contract between parties (my feeble understanding of the Libertarian Party view).

 

In my life, I have learned one hard and fast rule. All human beings will operate in their own best interest, to the exclusion of any laws, customs, social norms, or religious dogmas, if and when they feel that their position is sufficiently weakened or threatened.

 

Greed is the ultimate trumping emotion.

 

As to your comment from FDR, I admit not knowing what it was from but am I correct in assuming that you find it inconsistent with his actions later as a President during the depression?

 

Situtations change, and people change with them. Say what you will but it is pretty much a undisputed fact that FDR was a good President and did some remarkable things for this nation during it's worst moments in history.

 

Personally, I'll take the "New Deal" to the current systems of social aid we now "administer".

 

Hell, at least I've been to many paces constructed and proudly bearing a Works Progress Administration (WPA) plaque. At least people learned a trade and the country received something tangible for it's investment, unlike today.

[hugo]

FDr does get a bum rap among libertarians, he certainly was not the first President to violate the Constitution. Jefferson and Madison argued strongly against the constitutionality of the national bank in Washington's administration and later Jefferson himself had to violate his principles

 

Jefferson sent James Monroe and Robert Livingston to France with the intention of negotiating the purchase of the port of New Orleans, in an attempt to end, at long last, American difficulties there. He also instructed them to negotiate the purchase, if possible, of as much of Florida as possible. However, the envoy found Napoleon had given up on his plan for a Caribbean empire in order to focus on the war in Europe. In order to finance French efforts in Europe, he wanted to sell all of the Louisiana Territory. After some negotiation, the price was set at $15 million in April 1803, for which the US gained an enormous, uncharted piece of land to the west of the Mississippi River. For the price of approximately 13.5 cents per acre, the United States had doubled its size.

Jefferson, always the strict constructionist, feared that the purchase would be deemed unconstitutional. Therefore, he personally drafted a constitutional amendment authorizing the national government to acquire new lands and allowing for the indefinite settlement of the new territory. However, Jefferson and his colleagues feared the time it would take to adopt a new amendment might allow the deal to slip through their fingers. Urged by fellow Republicans, he dropped the amendment and submitted the treaty that provided for the Louisiana Purchase to the Senate, where it was speedily ratified.

 

Most of FDR's welfare programs were workfare programs and you are correct we are still enjoying some of the government funded projects of the depression era. Most of these programs ended when the depression ended. The greatest problem was they opened up the floodgates for LBJ's Great Society programs. Today government programs don't seem to ever go away.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Most of FDR's welfare programs were workfare programs and you are correct we are still enjoying some of the government funded projects of the depression era. Most of these programs ended when the depression ended. The greatest problem was they opened up the floodgates for LBJ's Great Society programs. Today government programs don't seem to ever go away.

 

Agreed. My biggest bone of contention is that we as a society receive NOTHING for our HUGE investment. At least under FDR, we got something for our money!

[RegisteredAndEducated]

Agreed. My biggest bone of contention is that we as a society receive NOTHING for our HUGE investment. At least under FDR, we got something for our money!

 

Agreed... We should get something out of all the welfare paid today. There should never be a ditch that needs digging or trash on the highway, or anything remotely like that. There should never be a volunteer worker with habitat for humanity, we've got em built in. If they're going to be the ones living in these houses, let them build them.