AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I don't judge; I challenge. That's a huge difference you'll never understand.

I am not sure what you want me to defend Fox..
None of the cases you cite waited 70 years or more to overturn the meaning of "general welfare."

As to your "originalist" argument. Are you arguing that Hamilton shouldn't be considered an originalist? It was Hamilton's argument that the court accepted in ruling that "general welfare" is a separate clause that allows Congress to tax and spend for what they consider to be "general welfare."

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1




Document 21

Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

5 Dec. 1791Papers 10:302--4
A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state."

This article examines the original understanding of the Constitution's Spending Clause (giving Congress the power to tax for the common defense and general welfare) and the competing interpretations of it offered by Alexander Hamilton, on the one hand, and James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, on the other. Madison contended that the Clause's reference to the general welfare was just short-hand for the powers granted elsewhere in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, while Hamilton viewed the clause as a stand-alone grant of power. Even Hamilton, though, believed that the power had limits - spending had to be for the general, or national, welfare and not for the welfare of a single state or locale. The article then traces the historical disputes about the constitutionality of internal improvements, from the watershed election of 1800, through presidential veto messages all the way to the eve of the civil war, and finally to the Supreme Court's New Deal-era decision in United States v. Butler, concluding that the blank check interpretation given to the clause since Butler simply cannot be squared with the original understanding of either Hamilton or Madison.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=906063

All good teaching requires repetition sufficient to drill it through the hardest noggin.

What Modern American Conservatism believes is that the Congress and Courts have illegally redefined what the 'general welfare' was intended to be as written into the Constitution. . . . And that which has been corrupted can in fact be made right. That which the court has ruled one way can be overturned by another court ruling a different way.

Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

Story says that, if the tax be not proposed for the common defence or general welfare, but for other objects wholly extraneous, it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles. [Footnote 17] And he makes it clear that the powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-339#post-3618215

What the hell do you think we were talking about Fox if not general welfare and taxation?

I stated that the court after 70 years isn't very likely to overturn something you think it should. You are free to disagree with any decision you want to Fox, as am I. You are not free to declare unconstitutional something the court already decided constitutional and expect to have a strong argument. The constitution doesn't defend you at that point but undermines you.

I don't even understand what you want me to defend about the cases you listed. Please tell us why you think they were all wrong if you want me to defend them.

Common sense, original intent, and changing circumstances often does trump case law. Which is why court rulings are so often overturned by higher courts and why the Supreme Court has on occasion overturned itself.

Re: Foxfyre(Post 3618131)
So, your entire argument is what Fox? That MAC's ignore the USSC and what the constitution actually says about that court?

You can't argue that MAC's support the constitution at the same time that you want to argue that the court's rulings on the constitution shouldn't be upheld.

Sure I can. If you think the court is infallible or we should agree with it no matter what decisions it declares, lets see you defend Brown v Bd of Education; the so-called Slaughter House Cases; Dred Scott; Plessy v Ferguson; Buck v Bell.

Those nine people on the Court put their pants (or panties) on one leg at a time just like all the rest of us, and their biases and prejudices and convoluted view of the Constitution can get caught up in their decisions as easily as it can for any other human. That is why a President who values and cherishes the US Constitution will appoint originalists to the Court--men and woman with the training, judicial temperament, and proven skill to interpret the law rather than make the law--and not those who intend to legislate from the bench.
http://able2know.org/topic/113196-340#post-3618290

Sure. But after many, many cases have all been done on the same topic, it becomes extremely rare for courts to overturn the previous findings.

http://www.answers.com/topic/taxing-and-spending-clause
Congress's 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” (Art. I, sec. 8) is extraordinarily important and controversial.8

The precise meaning of the clause has never been clear. Its peculiar wording and placement in the Constitution have contributed to the problem. One interpretation was that it granted to Congress the broad power to provide for the general welfare. This interpretation assumes that the clause is the first of Congress's enumerated powers (it does immediately precede the long list of enumerated powers in Article I, section 8) and is consistent with a literal reading (see also Implied Powers). Still, this interpretation was inconsistent with the premise that the federal government is one of limited powers and would have rendered the list of enumerated powers redundant. It was never authoritatively accepted and was rejected officially by the Supreme Court in United States v. Butler (1936).

At the other extreme, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson argued that the Taxing and Spending Clause conferred on Congress no additional power whatsoever"that it was merely a summary or general description of the specific powers. Under this view, the clause simply gives to Congress the power to tax and spend to carry out its enumerated powers, which follow immediately afterward. This interpretation was also rejected by the Court in Butler.

A third view was offered by Alexander Hamilton in his 1792 Report on Manufactures. Hamilton argued that the Taxing and Spending Clause conferred on Congress a separate and distinct power and was therefore in addition to, and not limited by, other grants of power under the Constitution. Such a view gives Congress the substantive power to tax and spend for the general welfare over and above its power to tax and spend to carry out its other enumerated powers.