AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

That's common here since more than 130 years ... (but not always looked at during all the years).

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm
THE FEDERALIST PAPERS
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.asp
No. 41
Madison
...
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.
...

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Section 8. The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
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.

Why the Tenth Amendment "Nullification" Arguments Against the Stimulus Bill Are Sheer Folly " and Why It's Disturbing that So Many Years After the Civil War, They Are Still Being Raised
(By EDWARD LAZARUS, FindLaw Commentary, March 12, 2009)

In the wake of the passage of the stimulus bill, it was widely reported that a bevy of states, many of them so-called "red" states, entertained legislation purporting to declare the federal legislation "unconstitutional" " as, allegedly, a violation of rights guaranteed the states under the Tenth Amendment " and asserting a right of individual states to ignore the law. Stripped of the rhetoric about the immorality of the stimulus package, what these states are proposing is plain and simple a constitutional scheme under which states have a right to "nullify" any federal laws that they deem to intrude on their prerogatives.

It is difficult to see where the legislators who have drafted these states' rights bills find this "nullification" authority in the Tenth Amendment. That Amendment simply states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Nowhere in this somewhat opaque text does the Constitution vest states with the right to unilaterally pick and choose what federal laws to obey based on their own conceptions of the Constitution. And if it somehow did, our system would simply fall apart. Federal power either overrules state power " as the Supremacy Clause dictates " or is merely advisory, which is untenable.

But if these state actions have only dubious grounding in the Constitution, they do have long and obvious historical roots " and shameful ones.

Back in 1828, then-Vice President John C. Calhoun gave voice to the doctrine of "nullification" in his fury over the federal tariffs that were then being imposed on states by the federal government. Like the modern-day nullifiers, Calhoun read the Tenth Amendment as providing states with a veto over disfavored federal legislation, to wit, a tariff too high for South Carolina's views of what was proper.

As Calhoun famously framed the idea: "That the sovereign powers delegated are divided between the General and State Governments ... it would seem impossible to deny to the States the right of deciding on the infractions of their powers, and the proper remedy to be applied for their correction." And on this theory, a South Carolina convention passed the "Ordinance of Nullification," which declared the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 to be null and void.

The President at the time obtained legislation to coerce compliance from South Carolina, including the use of force if that proved necessary. Under this threat, a compromise was eventually reached, whereby South Carolina obtained a lower tariff rate but repealed the Ordinance of Nullification.

The nullification doctrine did not die there, however. Nullification was born with the issue of slavery in mind. Southerners conceived of the doctrine as a potential tactic for fighting any federal attempts to abolish slavery " claiming that they could just refuse to enforce any such law. And beyond serving as a potential tactic for trying to preserve slavery, the concept underlying nullification " the idea that states could act in defiance of the federal government " paved the way for the even more radical concept of secession. Indeed, it was no coincidence that South Carolina, which birthed nullification (and which is jumping on the nullification bandwagon again now), was the first state to secede 30 years later and to set us upon each other in the fight for the survival of the Union.

It is hard to know what to make of the fact that a bunch of opportunistic politicians are now holding out a tarnished artifact of constitutional history as a serious interpretation of the Constitution and of our national structure. Perhaps this can be written off as mere grandstanding " symbolic gestures by politicians who are hoping to tap into a potential backlash against the inevitable growth of the federal government as it comes to grips with our economic crisis.

But nullification is a deeply pernicious idea. It strikes at the core of the constitutional bargain that was struck after the Revolution when the Articles of Confederation failed " the working principle that we are all in this together and that the purpose of the federal government, a government in which every state is represented, is to calibrate the shared sacrifices that all of us will have to bear to preserve the country's economic vitality and help it prosper. In place of this unifying idea, nullification substitutes the easy way out " by making the claim that we must all be allowed to judge our own contribution and take our own path, no matter how much our cross-purposes and divergent interests might undermine the common good.

To state the obvious, however, we do not live in ordinary times and the strains on the national fabric are increasing. A number of states already face double-digit employment " and that grim figure does not count those who are underemployed or have given up looking for a job. Unemployment nationwide will probably soon reach a comparable level. Overall, the risk of social unrest and the need for collective action to weather the economic storm are both rising.

In the face of this, it is not just wrong, but outright irresponsible to talk of nullification, much less, as actor Chuck Norris (Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's celebrity sidekick) did today, to announce that he could readily imagine Texas seceding from the Union "sooner than we think" and that there would be "thousands of cell groups" united in solidarity around the country.

This all sounds like a very bad movie " but we need to be vigilant that this vision of how we should govern ourselves remains more fiction than fact.

Debra wrote:

Quote:

"...disgusting hypocrisy..."

just about nails it. The same conservative congress members who voted for $700 billion last year during Bush's rein without so much as a wink with no strings attached to that money, now wants to watch every penny spent by Obama's stimulus plan.

The reason over 60% of Americans now approve of Obama is because they see that our government is now doing their best to reverse this economic crisis created by Bush. Those 4.4 million people who lost their jobs last year want our government to help reverse this job and home loss, and that includes both conservatives and liberals. The conservative congress members only know how to say "no." That's pissing off a lot of voters which will be reflected during the next election cycle.

The GOP is now known as the Grand Obstructionist Party.

But nullification is a deeply pernicious idea. It strikes at the core of the constitutional bargain that was struck after the Revolution when the Articles of Confederation failed " the working principle that we are all in this together and that the purpose of the federal government, a government in which every state is represented, is to calibrate the shared sacrifices that all of us will have to bear to preserve the country's economic vitality and help it prosper. In place of this unifying idea, nullification substitutes the easy way out " by making the claim that we must all be allowed to judge our own contribution and take our own path, no matter how much our cross-purposes and divergent interests might undermine the common good.

Obama also noted that the Omnibus Budget that he signed was an imperfect bill and he noted the hypocrisy of the Republicans who blasted the earmarks because most of them had a hand in adding their own earmarks to the bill.

Debra Law wrote:

The GOP is now known as the Grand Obstructionist Party.

Its called "sticking your finger in the dike."

Quote:

Obama also noted that the Omnibus Budget that he signed was an imperfect bill and he noted the hypocrisy of the Republicans who blasted the earmarks because most of them had a hand in adding their own earmarks to the bill.

But wasnt it Obama that campaigned on the pledge of NO EARMARKS?
So isnt he breaking his own promise?

And I dont but the excuse that its "old business".
It became "new business" once the dem controlled congress and Obama agreed to all of the spending and passed the bill.

Quote:

Obama also noted that the Omnibus Budget that he signed was an imperfect bill and he noted the hypocrisy of the Republicans who blasted the earmarks because most of them had a hand in adding their own earmarks to the bill.

But wasnt it Obama that campaigned on the pledge of NO EARMARKS?
So isnt he breaking his own promise?

And I dont but the excuse that its "old business".
It became "new business" once the dem controlled congress and Obama agreed to all of the spending and passed the bill.

You can't remember which candidate pledged "no earmarks?" It was McCain who campaigned on the pledge of no earmarks. McCain vowed to veto every spending bill that contained an earmark. President Obama has no duty to implement his losing opponent's campaign promises.

WASHINGTON - President-elect Barack Obama vowed Tuesday to bar lawmakers' pet projects from his massive economic stimulus plan and to bring unprecedented accountability to federal spending.

WASHINGTON - Despite campaign promises to take a machete to lawmakers' pet projects, President Barack Obama is quietly caving to funding nearly 8,000 of them this year, drawing a rebuke yesterday from his Republican challenger in last fall's election.


Arizona Sen. John McCain said it is "insulting to the American people" for Obama's budget director to indicate over the weekend that the president will sign a $410 billion spending bill with what Republicans critics say is nearly $5.5 billion in pet projects, known as earmarks.


"So much for the promise of change," McCain said in the first of many assaults he is likely to make against pork-barrel spending this year.


Democrats contend that earmarks in the bill total only $3.8 billion, less than 1 percent of the amount Congress is approving to finance government programs through September. Taxpayers for Common Sense, an anti-earmark watchdog group, counts them differently and found $7.7 billion worth.

March 5, 2009
This morning the White House announced that Vivek Kundra will be the administrations Chief Information Officer. Previously he served as the Chief Technology Officer for the Government of the District of Columbia. As the Chief Information Officer (CIO), Kundra will direct technology ventures for U.S. agencies. According to a statement from Obama, he will ‘play a key role in making sure our government is running in the most secure, open, and efficient way possible.’

The seems to be the fulfillment of Obama’s campaign promise to create a technology czar tasked with helping government operate more efficiently. In this administration it seems that creating another level of bureaucracy equates efficiency, somehow. The newly created position will function under the auspices of the White House. Kundra will be expected to oversee government agencies purchases and use of information technology.

Vivek Kundra Biography
Vivek Kundra was born in 1974 in New Delhi, India and raised in Tanzania. He is 34 years old. He moved with his family to Maryland, U.S.A. He graduated from the University of Virginia’s Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership. He has an MS degree from the University of Maryland in Information Technology.

Prior to accepting the position as the new Federal Chief Information Officer, Kundra served on Barack Obama’s transition team.
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3239

Obama official not a target in FBI raid
Thu Mar 12, 2009
By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The FBI raided the former office of Obama administration official Vivek Kundra and arrested two people in a corruption probe on Thursday, but Kundra is not a target of the investigation, a spokeswoman for Washington's mayor said.

The FBI searched the offices of the District of Columbia's chief technology officer, a post formerly held by Kundra, as it investigates employee corruption there, spokeswoman Mafara Hobson said.

President Barack Obama named Kundra, 34, to be the federal government's chief information officer last week, responsible for overseeing the government's computer systems.

The White House declined to comment.

Yusuf Acar, who works in the District's technology office, and another man, Sushil Bansal, were arrested, FBI spokeswoman Lindsay Godwin said.

Godwin declined to say whether the two were arrested on bribery charges, as reported by The Washington Post. The charges remain under seal, Godwin said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE52B50X20090312

Obama did not agree with the bill. He called it an imperfect bill. He could have vetoed the bill. A veto, however, meant that the federal government would have had absolutely no funding as of midnight and no funding would be available until Congress presented a better bill for his signature. The lack of funding would cause our federal government to grind to a halt. Obviously, President Obama found the total lack of funding less palatable than an imperfect bill that allows the government to continue working.

The OILs (i.e., Obama Invidious Liberals) are not serving our interests. About one-third of our after federal tax income--about $300 per week--has been derived from our investments. Since the OILs took over the federal government, that income has been reduced to $200 per week. That reduction has been produced by the OILS threatening to raise taxes on those who manage the companies that produce our income, AND/or THREATENING to take over those same companies.

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record
by William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore

William A. Niskanen is chairman and Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.

Published on October 22, 1996
Bob Dole's proposal for a 15 percent income tax cut has reignited the long-standing debate about the economic impact of Reaganomics in the 1980s. This study assesses the Reagan supply-side policies by comparing the nation's economic performance in the Reagan years (1981-89) with its performance in the immediately preceding Ford-Carter years (1974-81) and in the Bush-Clinton years that followed (1989-95).

William A. Niskanen is chairman and Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.

More by William A. Niskanen
On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

This study also exposes 12 fables of Reaganomics, such as that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, the Reagan tax cuts caused the deficit to explode, and Bill Clinton's economic record has been better than Reagan's.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120