55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 10:32 am
@joefromchicago,
The Constitution doesn't mention anything about bail out of banks, finance companies, insurance companies, and auto companies, but they have done those within the past 12 months.

ican can't seem to wrap that simple action of congress into his belief about the limits of congress based on the Constitution.

There's a huge difference between what a few citizens believe are not constitutional, and what our congress actually does. They're just whistling dixie without much impact on reality. They're charges that congress is breaking the laws is comical at best.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 10:33 am
@joefromchicago,
Joe, I really wish that you'd stop injecting reality and actual facts in these discussions with Ican. Who are you to question this renowned constitutional scholar? There are far too many of us relying on him to help us understand the Constitution and the workings of government.

We much prefer fantasy to fact so please stop it!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 10:58 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
In matters of government, it is inevitable that there will be some ambivalence in the gray areas while holding strong opinons re the blatant misuse of the people's money, resources, and/or violations of their Constitutional, civil, legal, human, unalienable rights.

Are there gray areas when it comes to the constitution?


I don't think so. But the Constitution was ratified more than 200 years ago before we had many of the things, abilities, words, etc. that we have now. And I think, as we are demonstrating, that there are some gray areas of interpretation of Constitutional intent when it comes to various activities. Printing paper money is one of those gray areas. Nothing like that was contemplated or necessary when the Constitution was ratified. Now we have to decide whether paper money does in fact fulfill the spirit and intent of the Constitution. Personally, I see no reason that it does not.
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 11:05 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't think so. But the Constitution was ratified more than 200 years ago before we had many of the things, abilities, words, etc. that we have now. And I think, as we are demonstrating, that there are some gray areas of interpretation of Constitutional intent when it comes to various activities. Printing paper money is one of those gray areas. Nothing like that was contemplated or necessary when the Constitution was ratified.

All of the drafters of the constitution had experience with paper money -- after all, the American government printed scads of it during the war of independence. If they wanted paper money, you'd think they would have given congress the authority to issue it.

Foxfyre wrote:
Now we have to decide whether paper money does in fact fulfill the spirit and intent of the Constitution. Personally, I see no reason that it does not.

Where do you find the "spirit and intent of the constitution?"
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 11:06 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:

Where do you find the "spirit and intent of the constitution?"


She just talks into a tape, and plays it back, in order to find that stuff out, Joe.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 11:08 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Printing paper money is one of those gray areas. Nothing like that was contemplated or necessary when the Constitution was ratified.


http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/northamerica.html (the whole piece is an interesting read)

Quote:
The first State issue of notes (in north America) was made in 1690 by the Massachusetts Bay Colony. These notes, or "bills of credit". were issued to pay soldiers returning from an expedition to Quebec. The notes promised eventual redemption in gold or silver and could be used immediately to pay taxes and were accepted as legal tender. The example of Massachusetts was followed by other colonies who thought that by printing money they could avoid the necessity to raise taxes.

Another early form of paper money used in north America was "tobacco notes". These were certificates attesting to the quality and quantity of tobacco deposited in public warehouses. These certificates circulated much more conveniently than the actual leaf and were authorized as legal tender in Virginia in 1727 and regularly accepted as such throughout most of the eighteenth century.

In addition to the State issues, a number of public banks began issuing loans in the form of paper money secured by mortgages on the property of the borrowers. In these early cases the term "bank" meant simply the collection or batch of bills of credit issued for a temporary period. If successful, reissues would lead to a permanent institution or bank in the more modern sense of the term. One of the best examples was the Pennsylvania Land Bank which authorized three series of note issues between 1723 and 1729. This bank received the enthusiastic support of Benjamin Franklin who in 1729 published his Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency. His advocacy did not go unrewarded as the Pennsylvania Land Bank awarded Franklin the contract for printing its third issue of notes.

Gradually the British government began to restrict the rights of the colonies to issue paper money. In 1740 a dispute arose involving a "Land Bank or Manufactury Scheme" in Boston, and the following year the British parliament ruled that the bank was illegal in that it transgressed the provisions of the Bubble Act of 1720 (passed after the collapse of the South Sea Bubble - one of the most notorious outbreaks of financial speculation in history). Restrictions were subsequently tightened because some colonies, including Massachusetts and especially Rhode Island, issued excessive quantities of paper money thus causing inflation. Finally, in 1764 a complete ban on paper money (except when needed for military purposes) was extended to all the colonies.


http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1726-1750/franklin/paper.htm
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 11:09 am
http://www.newmajority.com/why-i-am-anti-republican

Quote:
Why I Am Anti-Republican
August 30th, 2009 at 8:44 am by Bruce Bartlett | 166 Comments |
Share

I got an e-mail from a prominent Republican asking why I am so anti-Republican these days. Since many of my friends ask the same thing I thought I would share my reply:

I think the party got seriously on the wrong track during the George W. Bush years, as I explained in my Impostor book. In my opinion, it no longer bears any resemblance to the party of Ronald Reagan. I still consider myself to be a Reaganite. But I don’t see any others anywhere in the GOP these days, which is why I consider myself to be an independent. Mindless partisanship has replaced principled conservatism. What passes for principle in the party these days is “what can we do to screw the Democrats today.” How else can you explain things like that insane op-ed Michael Steele had in the Washington Post on Monday?

I am not alone. When I talk to old timers from the Reagan years, many express the same concerns I have. But they all work for Republican-oriented think tanks like AEI and Hoover and don’t wish to be fired like I was from NCPA . Or they just don’t want to be bothered or lose friends. As a free agent I am able to say what they can’t or won’t say publicly.

I think the Republican Party is in the same boat the Democrats were in in the early eighties " dominated by extremists unable to see how badly their party was alienating moderates and independents. The party’s adults formed the Democratic Leadership Council to push the party back to the center and it was very successful. But there is no group like that for Republicans. That has left lunatics like Glenn Beck as the party’s de facto leaders. As long as that remains the case, I want nothing to do with the GOP.

I will know that the party is on the path to recovery when someone in a position of influence reaches out to former Republicans like me. We are the most likely group among independents to vote Republican. But I see no effort to do so. All I see is pandering to the party’s crazies like the birthers . In the short run that may be enough to pick up a few congressional seats next year, but I see no way a Republican can retake the White House for the foreseeable future. Both CBO and OMB are predicting better than 4% real growth in 2011 and 2012. If those numbers are even remotely correct Obama will have it in the bag. Also, Republicans have to find a way to win some minority votes because it is not viable as a whites-only party in presidential elections. That’s why I wrote my Wrong on Race book, which no one read.


Bartlett is entirely correct; the whole premise of the modern Republican party is to play the spoiler. There are no moderate voices and there is no attempt at compromise. Only extreme voices and absolutism.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 11:09 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
The constitutional struggle between Britain and the colonies over the right to issue paper money was a significant factor in provoking the American Revolution.


http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/northamerica.html
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 11:12 am
@joefromchicago,
Why is it you can find in the constitution what you want it to say in the grey areas, yet you refuse to do so when others do the same exact thing?


You suggest that this:
joefromchicago wrote:

Art. I, sec. 8: The Congress shall have 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

is the same as "the Constitution ... say(s) the federal government CAN lend money if the recipient is planning on buying something with that money"?

Yet,
Quote:
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
says absolutely, beyond any doubt what-so-ever that the government can in no way be allowed to print money?

Your ability to interpret these things as you wish is silly. Makes you appear to be no more then the partisan hack that you are.

joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 11:33 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Why is it you can find in the constitution what you want it to say in the grey areas, yet you refuse to do so when others do the same exact thing?

You suggest that this:
joefromchicago wrote:

Art. I, sec. 8: The Congress shall have 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

is the same as "the Constitution ... say(s) the federal government CAN lend money if the recipient is planning on buying something with that money"?

Yet,
Quote:
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
says absolutely, beyond any doubt what-so-ever that the government can in no way be allowed to print money?

In response to a thoroughly wrong-headed post like this, I would usually remark that the author has completely misunderstood what I wrote, but seeing as it's you, McG, I think that goes without saying.

I've never said that congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to print money. Frankly, nobody has even asked my opinion on the topic. What I have said, on the other hand, is that the constitution is completely silent on the issue of paper money. For a constitutional literalist like Ican that's something of a problem, and we can see how torn he is as he tries to decide how his fondness for paper money can be reconciled with his literalist interpretation of the constitution.

McGentrix wrote:
Your ability to interpret these things as you wish is silly. Makes you appear to be no more then the partisan hack that you are.

Given your rather comical misreading of my posts, I'll let others decide what that makes you appear to be.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 11:34 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
Why is it you can find in the constitution what you want it to say in the grey areas, yet you refuse to do so when others do the same exact thing?


Methinks you should at least begin to understand the arguments before you engage in argument.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 11:55 am
@joefromchicago,
So, by bringing it up repeatedly, you were merely being obtuse. I see.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 12:02 pm
@McGentrix,
Here's a novel idea for you, McG; why not parade your stupidity instead of making a quick exit?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 12:44 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxie, You call them grey areas, but how do you purchase anything? How is our economy supposed to operate without currency? You have a better idea?
Please share that with us, because I don't have a clue how any economy can operate without currency.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 12:46 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
All of the drafters of the constitution had experience with paper money -- after all, the American government printed scads of it during the war of independence. If they wanted paper money, you'd think they would have given congress the authority to issue it.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is, Joe. Is it that a consequent originalist interpretation of the constitution prohibits that the US issue paper money? Or is your point that there is no way of applying the constitution to reality without interpreting it -- even if it's an originalist interpretation?

If you're saying the latter -- that you can't not interpret the constitution -- I agree with you. A strictly literal interpretation gets you nowhere. The crassest example is that the Air Force would be unconstitutional under a strictly literal interpretation, because the Constitution permits only the establishment of an Army and a Navy. That would obviously be absurd.

But if your point is that a consequent originalist interpretation forbids the issuing of paper money, I think you're wrong. If you look up the topic in The Founder's constitution, you will find that the framers understood the power to print paper currency to be part of the power to coin money. Indeed, it was the main part of what was prohibited to the states and reserved to the federal government. (The states could, after all, still circulate physical gold and silver.) The power to circulate paper, even in quantities that inflate the currency, is well-established even under an originalist interpretation of the constitution. (Additionally, Joseph Story suggests in a rhetorical question that paper money isn't really money, but rather an IOU of the issuer. If we took this suggestion seriously, the printing of paper money could alternatively be justified by the power of the United States "[t]o borrow Money on the credit of the United States" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2).



cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 12:51 pm
@Thomas,
Good insight, Thomas. Thanks for sharing it here.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 01:06 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I don't think so. But the Constitution was ratified more than 200 years ago before we had many of the things, abilities, words, etc. that we have now. And I think, as we are demonstrating, that there are some gray areas of interpretation of Constitutional intent when it comes to various activities. Printing paper money is one of those gray areas. Nothing like that was contemplated or necessary when the Constitution was ratified.

All of the drafters of the constitution had experience with paper money -- after all, the American government printed scads of it during the war of independence. If they wanted paper money, you'd think they would have given congress the authority to issue it.


That paper money was in fact used prior to the writing and ratification of the Congress is a fact. It is also a fact that its value was not sufficiently regulated as is specifically stipulated in the Constitution, and paper mone quickly inflated to the point that it was essentially worthless. Gresham's law kicked in: bad money drives out good money. All hard money (coins) essentially disappeared. I am not sure, but I suspect for that reason the Founders focused on coins, rather than paper money, as the proper currency of the land.

Gresham's law still applies when Congress prints more and more money that isn't backed even by good faith, much less a gold standard, and I think that violates the spirit and intent of the Constitution to ensure a properly regulated and effective money supply. A paper dollar that is backed by the same standard as a gold or silver coin, however, I think does meet the spirit and intent of the Constitution on that subject as do coins that are made of cheap metal but which represent silver or other precious metals.

Quote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Now we have to decide whether paper money does in fact fulfill the spirit and intent of the Constitution. Personally, I see no reason that it does not.

Where do you find the "spirit and intent of the constitution?"


I thought you were a lawyer. You honestly have never heard of the spirit and intent of the law? And what is the Constitution other than the supreme law of the land by which we govern ourselves?

Quote:
Idiom Definitions for 'Spirit of the law'
The spirit of the law is the idea or ideas that the people who made the law wanted to have effect.
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/spirit+of+the+law.html


cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 01:29 pm
@Foxfyre,
Use of currency and subsequent actions by governments have occurred in many countries around the world that changed the value and usage of currrency including the Euro countries. That will continue to happen no matter what the populace believes are constitutional or not within their own countries.

I thought the initial argument was against the government printing money was not within the purview of congress and the Constitution of the US.

0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 01:29 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

So, by bringing it up repeatedly, you were merely being obtuse. I see.

Coming from the Emperor of Obtuse, that is high praise indeed.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 01:35 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

I'm not entirely sure what your point is, Joe.

I'm merely trying to discern how Ican arrives at the conclusion that the constitution forbids the government from "transferring wealth." As I understand it, Ican believes that the constitution doesn't say anything about transferring wealth, and so that's prohibited. But the constitution is equally silent about printing money, and yet Ican doesn't seem to have too much trouble with that. So why is the former unconstitutional while the latter isn't? Really, it's a pretty simple question, which is, I'm sure, why McGentrix is having such a hard time with it. It makes me wonder, though, why I'm having such a difficult time getting a straight answer from Ican.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 06:59:14