AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Oh, look, no standing army either....

@old europe,

This one fits ican very "neatly." Sent to me by a friend in Australia.

Quote:

First-year students at Vet School were attending their first anatomy
class, with a real dead cow. They all gathered around the surgery table
with the body covered with a white sheet. The professor started the
class by telling them, "In Veterinary Medicine it is necessary to have
two important qualities as a doctor: The first is that you not be
disgusted by anything involving the animal body".

For an example, the Professor pulled back the sheet, stuck his finger in
the butt of the dead cow, withdrew it and stuck his finger in his mouth.
"Go ahead and do the same thing," he told his students.

The students freaked out, hesitated for several minutes, but eventually
took turns sticking a finger in the butt of the dead cow and sucking on
it. When everyone finished, the Professor looked at them and said, "The
second most important quality is observation. I stuck in my middle
finger and sucked on my index finger. Now learn to pay attention. Life's
tough, but it's even tougher if you're stupid."

0 Replies

@old europe,

According to Madison, this clause in the Constitution is a general clause limited by the specific clauses that follow:

Quote:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power
To ... provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

In other words, the methods of accomplishing those general objectives are qualified by the specific powers granted in Section 8 that follow.

Quote:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.asp
Madison No. 41
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.

''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Cice, no more powers than these are constitutional.

Quote:

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.

0 Replies

@old europe,

Old europe,

Quote:

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

There was, and is a standing Army because Congress appropriated the money to a standing Army every two years. There will be a standing Army as long as Congress appropriates the money to a standing Army every two years.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Joe, I do not believe, and have told you several times I do not believe any of what this statement of yours says I believe:

(1) You haven't told me several times. In fact, you haven't told me even once.
(2) If your position differs from what I laid out, then explain the differences.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

But isn't this taking money who "earned them" to people who didn't? Isn't that transference?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

According to Madison, this clause in the Constitution is a general clause limited by the specific clauses that follow:

But according to Hamilton, writing in the same Federalist Papers, it is not -- it's an independent grant of federal power. And the Supreme Court has adopted Hamilton's view in United States v. Butler (1936). Note that this was the old-school, economically libertarian Supreme Court of Lochner v. New York fame -- before Roosevelt's 1937 court packing scheme, before "The Switch in Time that saved Nine". There is no way you could spin this decision as liberal judicial activism, so save yourself the effort.

The debate about the General Welfare Clause is over. Madison lost. Hamilton won. Get over it.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Perhaps not. There have been Supreme Court decisions that 'ended the debate' in the past only to be reversed by a subsequent Court: Plessy v Ferguson, Brown v Board of Education, Bowers v Hardwick and probably others.

It is true that the Supreme Court in the 1930's did leave it to Congress to determine what constituted the General Welfare and that has not been subsequently challenged. The Obama Administration, however, has the potential to so anger the people by overstepping its concept of the 'general welfare' that it could be challenged and eventually wind up in the Supreme Court to decide.

Even in the case you cited:
"The U. S. Supreme Court first interpreted the clause in United States v. Butler (1936). There, Justice Owen Roberts, in his majority opinion, agreed with Hamilton's view and held that the general welfare language in the taxing-and-spending clause constituted a separate grant of power to Congress to spend in areas over which it was not granted direct regulatory control. Nevertheless, the Court stated that this power to tax and spend was limited to spending for matters affecting the national, as opposed to the local, welfare. He also wrote that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of what was in fact in the national welfare. In the Butler decision, however, the Court shed no light on what it considered to be in the national"as opposed to local"interest, because it struck down the statute at issue on Tenth Amendment grounds."

Unfortunately, the Court then decided that Congress should decide what constitutes the General Welfare. (Helvering v. Davis (1937).)

Common sense should tell us that our elected officials cannot have the power to ingratiate themselves with any special interest group without such power becoming a corrupting influence. We have certainly been witnessing the truth of that for some time now.

I refuse to believe that the people have lost all power to demand the government they want, however. And if enough Constitutionalists are born or converted or emboldened, we could see our government restored to some semblance of sanity.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

But isn't this taking money who "earned them" to people who didn't? Isn't that transference?

why suh... aw yoo sug-jeston tha' itiz impropah ta prohhh-vide fowr tha commun deefence ov aw nayshun??

i say shame, suh.. shame!

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Would you? I don't recall you ever correcting members for calling George Bush a war criminal, liar, and worse.

Um - you really don't see a significant difference between calling George Bush - that is to say, one person, one politician, whose actions you can genuinely find repulsive - a criminal or liar, and calling Bush supporters, collectively, traitors to their country? You really dont see the difference between attacking a politician for what you consider him to have done, and smearing half the country as traitors, "plain and simple", for supporting a politician you don't agree with?

Foxfyre wrote:

You have never once defended me or anybody else on the right when falsely accused.

Bull.

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't see Obama as a traitor guilty of treason at this time, but I don't know what CJ had in mind when he said that either.

CJ didnt talk about Obama - he called Obama's supporters, collectively, traitors and enemies of the USA.

Foxfyre wrote:

I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and opportunity to explain themselves before I judge them.

- Except when they're liberals, apparently.

- Except him calling Obama supporters traitors and enemies of their country apparently didn't even warrant asking him to explain himself before you judged him. Apparently, you just accept stuff like that unquestioningly from people you consider to be on your side, and actually respond by heartily inviting them over to your thread.

Foxfyre wrote:

That, by the way, is a traditional American value which most MACs support and most MACs think the thought police to be far more sinister bottom feeders than the occasional excitable patriot.

Wait, what - so when someone like CJ calls all Democrats traitors to their country, he is not guilty of failing "to give people the benefit of the doubt and opportunity to explain themselves", he's just being an "excitable patriot"; but when others respond angrily and denigratingly to being smeared as traitors, they are guilty of "failing "to give people the benefit of the doubt and opportunity to explain themselves"?

2 Replies

huh... i don't feel like a traitor. traitors reveal military or state secrets for an exchange of money or power. or both.

hey! ya know who should feel like a traitor? dick cheney. karl rove. scooter libby. bob novak. judy miller.

yeah. now those guys, they should feel like traitors.

whaddaya say, real americans?

0 Replies

Leaving aside the appalling distortion of logic with which you address the problems which ought to be solved by private charity (but which never have been solved by private charity), while applauding the bellicose functions of government--you have not, Ican, answered my question about those who receive social security disability payments, those who receive social security survivors benefits, and those who are incarcerated in Federal penitentiaries. Vague remarks about what properly should be done by private charity do not constitute specific replies to specific questions.

Lets settle for a single question, and then we can take them one at a time. Do you consider the government justified in spending money to feed, clothe and house the inmates of Federal penitentiaries?

0 Replies

@old europe,

In fact, this is precisely how Thomas Jefferson wanted to interpret the constitution, because his ideology revolted against a standing army, or any long-serving professional military service. Fortunately for the United States, a professional navy had been formed, trained and provided what were then the most modern warships in the world in the administrations of Washington and Adams.

Jefferson would have seen American shores defended by a gun-boat navy, and the interior of the country defended by the militia. In late 1812, the attempt to invade Canada at Queenstown, Upper Canada (modern Ontario) was hampered by large numbers of the New York militia refusing to cross the Niagara River. Of those who did, many, upon discovering that they might actually be shot at, pushed aside the wounded to board the boats and hurry back to the New York side. I'm sure Jefferson would have applauded militia members who would not have invaded another country.

But what of the performance of the militia elsewhere? In 1814, after veterans of Wellington's peninsular campaign had been landed in Maryland, they began to march toward Washington, D.C. At Bladensburg, Maryland, they were opposed by Maryland and Virginia militia. The English numbered about 2,000 troops (somewhat less, in fact); they estimated their opponents at 9,000. That was an exaggeration, though--the militiamen numbered only about 7,000. So the English were attacking a 1 to 3.5, not 1 to 4.5. The militia threw down their arms, and ran, as fast as the fat little civilian legs would carry them. The position was defended by sailors and Marines of the gunboat navy, which the Royal Navy had handily sunk in a matter of days. The sailors were so devoted to their profession that the English reported that they continued to serve the guns (the artillery which the militia had abandoned when they ran away) "even after we had shot down all of their officers and were among them with the bayonet." The Marines defended their position until the sun went down, and then marched away, carrying all of their dead and wounded.

The battle we lost at Bladensburg nevertheless enabled Mr. Madison's government to evacuate Washington with all of their papers and archives. No thanks to the militia.

By contrast, the Royal Navy, which prided itself on not having lost any fleet action in more than 20 years, which prided itself on having lost no more than a handful of single-ship actions in the 20 years, which prided itself on having taken on and humiliated, even defeated out of hand, the fleets of Spain, France, Denmark, Prussia (for what little "fleet" they had), Sweden and Russia--fared considerably differently with the tiny American navy. The immediate consequence of the outbreak of war for the Royal Navy was that the United States Navy--then consisting of no line of battle ships, nine frigates and a handful of brigs and sloops--humiliated the English as they had done the rest of Europe. The Royal Navy put over 80 ships onto the North American station, and the United States Navy had just barely more than twenty in commission. U.S.S. Constitution engaged H.M.S. Guerriere, and in half an hour, dismasted her, forced her to strike her colors and burned her. U.S.S. United States engaged, defeated and captured H.M.S. Macedonian, which he manned and brought into port to be put into American service. Constitution then engaged H.M.S. Java, and after a three hour running gun fight, forced her to strike, after which the hulk was burned. The sloop of war U.S.S. Hornet sank outright the sloop of war H.M.S. Peacock after a 15 minute engagement. When, on June 1, 1813, after a year of war, H.M.S. Shannon took U.S.S. Chesapeake (one the Americans smaller frigates), the English responded with hysterical joy. They had been thoroughly humiliated. The Admiralty sent out orders that no English frigate was to engage an American frigate unless accompanied by two consorts, and that only a line of battle ship was allowed to engage an American frigate if not accompanied by consorts. Constitution took H.M.S. Cyane, despite the fact that Cyane had originally begun a chase of Constitution in the company of two consorts.

The difference between the performance of the militia, of whom the conservatives are so fond (especially the gun nuts) and a professional service such as the United States Navy or the United States Marine Corps are striking. From deploring standing armies, the conservatives of America have come to a fanatical praise of the professional military services, and one, in fact, which will brook no criticism. However, the constitution does not authorize a standing army, and only authorizes Congress to provide for a Navy. Perhaps the constitution does not quite occupy the position of holy writ, scripture inspired from on high.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I refuse to believe that the people have lost all power to demand the government they want, however.

The people do have that power. And in 2006 and 2008, they have exercised this power by throwing the Republicans out of Congress and the White House. You want the people to have the government they want? You've got it! This is the government they want! It's just not the government you want.

PS: On United States v. Butler, you are quoting someone without attribution. May I ask whom it is you're quoting?

2 Replies

@nimh,

(Trying to visualize nimh as a sinister thought police officer ... struggling to keep the coffee in my mouth mere seconds into the visualizing effort ...)

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

PS: On United States v. Butler, you are quoting someone without attribution. May I ask whom it is you're quoting?

Seems to be a certain Katherine Jones at answer.com - at least, she's using exactly the same words.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Sorry, forgot to post the link, but Walter did correctly identify it. It was more simple to post the well written explanation than to take the time to type one out myself.

You can make this a nitpicking contest of course, and what you perceive is, or focus on principles of good government which is whzt I (and I believe Ican, Okie, JamesM, and others) have been focusing on. I do not look to the Supreme Court of the USA for what I am supposed to think or on what I am to place value. The Court is a committee of human beings, none of whom I believe to be infallible. Sometimes the Court will rule well, sometimes ambiguously and/or not so well. Such is the history of the Court.

My interest in the Court at this time is the hope for it to be a body committed to correctly interpreting the letter and intent of the law of the land and not of a mind to use it to further their own ideology and sociopolitical agenda and create their own laws to that end.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

According to Madison, the clause, "Article I Section 8. The Congress shall have power
To ... provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," is a general clause limited by the specific clauses that follow it.

Thomas wrote:

But according to Hamilton, writing in the same Federalist Papers, it is not -- it's an independent grant of federal power. And the Supreme Court has adopted Hamilton's view in United States v. Butler (1936). ...
The debate about the General Welfare Clause is over. Madison lost. Hamilton won. Get over it.

The debate over a court decision is not ever ended by a court decision. All court decisions are potentially reversible. So let's discuss it. What in fact do you think is Hamilton's federalist paper that says what you say Hamilton view is?

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm
THE FEDERALIST PAPERS

Quote:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed36.asp
Hamilton No. 36
Let it be recollected that the proportion of these taxes is not to be left to the discretion of the national legislature, but is to be determined by the numbers of each State, as described in the second section of the first article. An actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish the rule, a circumstance which effectually shuts the door to partiality or oppression. The abuse of this power of taxation seems to have been provided against with guarded circumspection. In addition to the precaution just mentioned, there is a provision that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States.''

Quote:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp
Madison No. 45
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. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I am curious Fox, how you decide whether the court followed the law or not?

Since your standard is that law should be followed and not individual ideologies or agendas that would mean those trained in the law should make those decisions. Since you are not a lawyer, shouldn't your desire that the law be interpreted without ideology mean you should defer to those that are lawyers in deciding what was correct?

I believe it has been pointed out here many times that those that loudly claim to only follow the law do so only when it fits their agendas and ideologies.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know