AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

"[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia [1782]

:"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

What is a power, but the ability or faculty of doing a thing? What is the ability to do a thing, but the power of employing the MEANS necessary to its execution? What is a LEGISLATIVE power, but a power of making LAWS? What are the MEANS to execute a LEGISLATIVE power but LAWS? What is the power of laying and collecting taxes, but a LEGISLATIVE POWER, or a power of MAKING LAWS, to lay and collect taxes? What are the proper means of executing such a power, but NECESSARY and PROPER laws?

This simple train of inquiry furnishes us at once with a test by which to judge of the true nature of the clause complained of. It conducts us to this palpable truth, that a power to lay and collect taxes must be a power to pass all laws NECESSARY and PROPER for the execution of that power; and what does the unfortunate and culminated provision in question do more than declare the same truth, to wit, that the national legislature, to whom the power of laying and collecting taxes had been previously given, might, in the execution of that power, pass all laws NECESSARY and PROPER to carry it into effect? I have applied these observations thus particularly to the power of taxation, because it is the immediate subject under consideration, and because it is the most important of the authorities proposed to be conferred upon the Union. But the same process will lead to the same result, in relation to all other powers declared in the Constitution. And it is EXPRESSLY to execute these powers that the sweeping clause, as it has been affectedly called, authorizes the national legislature to pass all NECESSARY and PROPER laws. If there is any thing exceptionable, it must be sought for in the specific powers upon which this general declaration is predicated. The declaration itself, though it may be chargeable with tautology or redundancy, is at least perfectly harmless.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed33.asp

:"...If there is any thing exceptionable, it must be sought for in the specific powers upon which this general declaration is predicated..."

But it may be again asked, Who is to judge of the NECESSITY and PROPRIETY of the laws to be passed for executing the powers of the Union? I answer, first, that this question arises as well and as fully upon the simple grant of those powers as upon the declaratory clause; and I answer, in the second place, that the national government, like every other, must judge, in the first instance, of the proper exercise of its powers, and its constituents in the last. If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. The propriety of a law, in a constitutional light, must always be determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is founded.

I wrote:
Some MACs are actually CALs and some aren't.

Foxfyre wrote:

So when do you see MACs as not being CALs?

Thanks for the reminder!

I was wrong!
As you previously defined MACs and CALs and just repeated that definition:
All MACs are CALs.
All Cals are MACs.

I should have written:
Some Conservatives are actually CALs and some aren't.
Some Conservatives are actually MACs and some aren't.

Sorry again, Re the previous post to the previous post, it was Hamilton in 33. Oh Well. I'm going to bed!

JM

See how easy it is to clarify one's remarks if just given the opportunity to do so? I doubt this little exercise will register on the MALs however, as 'equality under the law' in practical application seems a bit foreign to most. But oh well.

Ad hominem does not have to be blatantly insulting but draws an assumption of the unstated thought or emotion or character of the other person.

The biggest problem with Social Security is Congress raiding the trust fund.

Foxfyre -- a couple of pages back you asked me which privatizations and nationalizations I approve of, and why. (Not "socializations" -- thanks for correcting my English, ehBeth!") Here is a list, probably an incomplete one.

1) I approve of temporarily nationalizing the failing banks, for two reasons:

(a) I assume that "temporarily" really does mean temporarily. The Swedes re-privatized their banks after the government took them over in a comparable crisis 15-20 years ago. I don't expect America to be more socialist than the Swedes.

(b) It's less bad than the two alternatives on the table: The first alternative is to let those banks fail. That would have catastrophic effects on the economy as a whole. The second alternative is to infuse money into the banks without demanding anything in return. This is bad because it effectively subsidizes those banks for bad behavior, and fails to address the problems that got those banks in trouble in the first place. If taxpayers bail out a bank, they should get the same terms any private investor would. Any private investor would get equity in the bank for his money. That's what privatization does.

2) I approve of experimenting with the nationalization of health insurance, along the lines of the universal health care plans that John Edwards and others have proposed during the campaign. The reform that Obama actually implements should include a public plan. And if this public plan delivers better service for the money, the private health insurers should be allowed to lose as much of their business as the people insured choose it to -- which is possibly all of it.

3) I approve of experimenting with the privatization of the public schools through a voucher plan that gives every child as much money as it would cost a public school to educate it. The rationale is very much the same as for the experiment with nationalizing health insurers: Parents should be able to decide for themselves which system provides the best services for their child. The public schools should lose as many pupils to private schools as parents decide they should -- possibly all.

4) I used to approve of privatizing Social Security by, essentially, turning it into a giant 401k. But I have downgraded my stand to "neutral". I used to approve of it because it would have given retirees real property rights in their pensions, and would have given them the chance to invest their retirement savings elsewhere. I have downgraded to "neutral" because the plan Bush actually put on the table emanated incompetence and corruption, and wouldn't have improved on the status quo. But as soon as a competent Republican administration comes in, and as soon as they submit their plan, I'll give them another look. But I'm not holding my breath for competent Republicans coming in anytime soon.