The Forgotten Founders

[PLC1]

Not at all, however, I do see ignorance as a mental illness. Nto sure if it can be cured.

To the topic at hand, and I see one has not come up with any Aaron Burr quotes surprise, surprise, the left might consider these before suggesting that the Founders agreed with them:

With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798


As with anything else the government has gotten involved in, the costs will naturally rise whether it be for welfare, education, healthcare, or whatever. The desire of others to garner this "free money" for themselves is too much of a temptation for the ever weakening nature of man.

Where are NASA and the FAA enumerated in the Constitution? Should government close down those operations since they weren't specifically mentioned?

 

[Capitalist Pig]

That's because it says so, in the preamble, in the enumerated powers and also in the Declaration of Independence.

I don't need to make it up. I don't need to embellish it. Our Founders used those exact words to describe the responsibility and mission of our government.

They did, yes, but we have a very different interpretation of the meaning of the words "general welfare". My understanding of their meaning is supported by everything else in the constitution. Your definition requires that specific phrases be removed and considered entirely separately from the constitution as a whole. I'll ask you for the thousandth time, if the general welfare clause is a blank check for congressional power, then please tell me why the framers would have bothered to specify the powers given to congress. Why would they bother?

 

[Gipper]

"No man in his senses can hesitate in choosing to be free, rather than a slave." --Alexander Hamilton

 

[Gipper]

Here is what liberals will never understand. From The Great Walter Williams...

I don't know about you, but I would rather be dead than Red.

"While American politicians and intellectuals have not reached the depths of tyrants such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler, they share a common vision. Tyrants denounce free markets and voluntary exchange. They are the chief supporters of reduced private property rights, reduced rights to profits, and they are anti-competition and pro-monopoly. They are pro-control and coercion, by the state. These Americans who run Washington, and their intellectual supporters, believe they have superior wisdom and greater intelligence than the masses. They believe they have been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us. Like any other tyrant, they have what they consider good reasons for restricting the freedom of others. A tyrant's primary agenda calls for the elimination or attenuation of the market. Why? Markets imply voluntary exchange and tyrants do not trust that people behaving voluntarily will do what the tyrant thinks they should do. Therefore, they seek to replace the market with economic planning and regulation, which is little more than the forcible superseding of other people's plans by the powerful elite. We Americans have forgotten founder Thomas Paine's warning that 'Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.'" --George Mason University economics professor Walter E. Williams
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/walter-e-williams/2010/03/03/who-poses-the-greater-threat/

 

[Gipper]

"Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptionable characters." --Samuel Adams

Okay then, all liberals must be removed from office effective today. Because of course, liberals are not capable of "unexceptionable character." They are most exceptionable!!!

If only we could revive Sam Adams.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Where are NASA and the FAA enumerated in the Constitution? Should government close down those operations since they weren't specifically mentioned?

Sure, why not?

I'm a sap for NASA, but if you are going to use NASA as a crowbar to pry off the seal of the constitution, and justify any expansion of federal power, then screw it. Toss it. Private industry will in the end do space travel more efficiently anyways.

As for the FAA, why can't it be handled by individual states, or even individual airports? I know, I know.... everybody is gonna freak out, because they can't imagine a world where the government doesn't run everything important.

To many people have grown up today taking their freedom for granted. They just can't imagine that anything we do (or allow others to do) could ever really change America all that much. The reality is that we always have, and we always will stand at the cliffs edge of tyranny. If people don't pay attention, they could easily wake up one day and look around and realize that they are a decade to late to change it. They were complacent when vigilance was required. So many people will never recognize the nature of power until it turns it's attention on them. It doesn't happen all at once, and each little progression of authoritarianism always seems reasonable at the time. Some day maybe 30 years from now, maybe 50, you'll think back to the days when you were allowed to speak out against your leaders, and not have to worry about going to jail for sedition (I suppose they'll call it hate speech), and you won't really be able to put your finger on when exactly it changed.

 

[citizenzen]

I'll ask you for the thousandth time, if the general welfare clause is a blank check for congressional power, then please tell me why the framers would have bothered to specify the powers given to congress. Why would they bother?

Well for one, I question your assertion of a "blank check" of power.

The power is constrained by the constitution itself. Congress's power is constrained by the other branches of the government: they cannot pass any law that isn't also signed by the president or upheld in the courts, if challenged.

I wonder why you think Congress has a blank check and have forgotten about that other important check in our system... that of checks and balances.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Well for one, I question your assertion of a "blank check" of power.

The power is constrained by the constitution itself. Congress's power is constrained by the other branches of the government: they cannot pass any law that isn't also signed by the president or upheld in the courts, if challenged.

I wonder why you think Congress has a blank check and have forgotten about that other important check in our system... that of checks and balances.

You are still not answering the question. I suppose no answer is in a way an answer though. Clearly you recognize the logical fallibility of your position, or you would not be working so hard to avoid answering the question.

As to your question, my answer is this. The fact that the three branches of government are supposed to each check the power of the other does not negate the authority of the constitution. Congress shouldn't be in the position of forcing the other branches of government to check the authority that the constitution says they are not authorized to exercise in the first place. Your position is essentially that the constitution is irrelevant.

 

[citizenzen]

You are still not answering the question.

I answered your questions. You just don't want to acknowledge the answers.

The fact that the three branches of government are supposed to each check the power of the other does not negate the authority of the constitution.

I have always recognized and supported the authority of the constitution.

Congress shouldn't be in the position of forcing the other branches of government to check the authority that the constitution says they are not authorized to exercise in the first place.

Congress is specifically given the responsibility to provide for the general welfare of the United States in the constitution.

Can you show me where is says they are not authorized to do so?

No. You can not.

 

[PLC1]

Sure, why not?

I'm a sap for NASA, but if you are going to use NASA as a crowbar to pry off the seal of the constitution, and justify any expansion of federal power, then screw it. Toss it. Private industry will in the end do space travel more efficiently anyways.

As for the FAA, why can't it be handled by individual states, or even individual airports? I know, I know.... everybody is gonna freak out, because they can't imagine a world where the government doesn't run everything important.

To many people have grown up today taking their freedom for granted. They just can't imagine that anything we do (or allow others to do) could ever really change America all that much. The reality is that we always have, and we always will stand at the cliffs edge of tyranny. If people don't pay attention, they could easily wake up one day and look around and realize that they are a decade to late to change it. They were complacent when vigilance was required. So many people will never recognize the nature of power until it turns it's attention on them. It doesn't happen all at once, and each little progression of authoritarianism always seems reasonable at the time. Some day maybe 30 years from now, maybe 50, you'll think back to the days when you were allowed to speak out against your leaders, and not have to worry about going to jail for sedition (I suppose they'll call it hate speech), and you won't really be able to put your finger on when exactly it changed.

All that could come to pass. If it does, then I seriously doubt that we'll trace the end of freedom of speech to the federal government controlling air traffic or sending up the space shuttle.

Private enterprise is not going to get involved in space flight in any significant way Yes, I'm aware of the guy who made a plane that flies to sub orbit and plans to take wealthy people on a giant carnival ride. That is hardly space exploration.

The point is, the founding fathers could not possibly have anticipated what our modern world might be like.

Come to think of it, the constitution doesn't say anything about marriage, does it?

 

[OldTrapper]

Where are NASA and the FAA enumerated in the Constitution? Should government close down those operations since they weren't specifically mentioned?

I am always amazed at the lack of understanding of our Constitution by some who then try to defend an expansion of the governments authority for which there is no basis.

When the aircraft was first invented, or successfully flown, in 1903 by the Wright Bro., then advanced in 1905, by the 1920's there were numerous air endeavours in operation. The United States government recognized the potential for this style of travel, and thus in 1925 a law was passed called the Air Mail Act. Thus was established the air postal service. Then in 1926 the Air Commerce Act was signed into law. Thus, under the Constitutional authority of Article 1, section 8 (Commerce Clause, and Postal Clause) the early form of the FAA was enacted into law.

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Act) was enacted into law in 1958. At this time space exploration, and the development of rockets, was limited to the military. With the enactment of this law that was expanded to civilian enterprises under the auspices of the the military.

So, both of these agencies fall under the umbrella of the Constitution, whereas, welfare programs do not.

Your argument about things not "specifically mentioned" cannot hold any authority since no one is a "seer" able to see the future. However, maybe you should consider the words of Grover Cleveland, Democrat, and I am paraphrasing. In the late 1800's there was a vast drought in Texas, and the farmers had no money for seed. They requested assistance from the fed. Cleveland denied that assistance stating that to do so could lead to a dependence on the fed for which there was no Constitutional authority.

So, the farmers did not get their "welfare". However, the people of the country saw the plight of the farmers, took up donations, and gathered 10 times the amount needed.

That is how it is supposed to work.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

All that could come to pass. If it does, then I seriously doubt that we'll trace the end of freedom of speech to the federal government controlling air traffic or sending up the space shuttle.

Did I say we would? I'm pretty sure that the point I was making is that dependence of this kind is one of the million symptoms of our decline. I even recall pointing out that nobody in the future will be able to point out exactly when it all changed.

Private enterprise is not going to get involved in space flight in any significant way Yes, I'm aware of the guy who made a plane that flies to sub orbit and plans to take wealthy people on a giant carnival ride. That is hardly space exploration.

They will, and when they do, they will do it better and cheaper than the government ever could. The downside is that it will just take longer for it to get started without the technological stepladder that government funding through NASA can provide. Once technology makes it feasible however, lack of government funding will not prevent private industry from going out to find what there is to find for the purposes of development and exploitation.

The point is, the founding fathers could not possibly have anticipated what our modern world might be like.

They were smarter than you give them credit for. Of course they couldn't have imagined how the world would change, but they did in fact know that it would. The constitution has a process under which it can be added to, in order to keep it up to date. No amount of technological advancement however should ever invalidate the core principles of the constitution. You can't justify endless expansion of federal power, because the founders didn't know about radio waves, or spaceflight. Thinking like this essentially guarantees that the future of humanity is one of tyranny and oppression. You have to accept that just because the government has taken responsibility upon itself to fill certain roles, that does not mean that these roles could not be filled by private industry. Do you really think that there would be no air travel in America if not for the FAA? It's ridiculous.

Come to think of it, the constitution doesn't say anything about marriage, does it?

You are right, it doesn't. Which is why the federal government should have no role in deciding who can, and who cannot be married. It is not the role of the federal government to encourage or discourage behavior that it is not given constitutional authority to regulate.

I'm confused as to what point you thought you were making here. Perhaps you forgot from our earlier conversation on this, I am non religious. I'm against the entire idea of marriage licensing.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

CP: I'll ask you for the thousandth time, if the general welfare clause is a blank check for congressional power, then please tell me why the framers would have bothered to specify the powers given to congress. Why would they bother?

CZ: Well for one, I question your assertion of a "blank check" of power.

The power is constrained by the constitution itself. Congress's power is constrained by the other branches of the government: they cannot pass any law that isn't also signed by the president or upheld in the courts, if challenged.

I wonder why you think Congress has a blank check and have forgotten about that other important check in our system... that of checks and balances.

I answered your questions. You just don't want to acknowledge the answers.

Reread my question carefully, and then reread your answer. You did not answer the question I asked. You talked about the authority of the individual branches of government, and how their power to check the power of eachother limits the authority of congress. Again... it was not an answer to the question I asked.... it was an answer to a question that nobody asked. I'd repeat MY question if I thought it would help, but you clearly intend to dodge.

I have always recognized and supported the authority of the constitution.

You twist it's meaning. In order to prove that, I asked you a simple question which you have thus far refused to answer.

Congress is specifically given the responsibility to provide for the general welfare of the United States in the constitution.

If the entirety of the constitution was the one part of it that you like to repeat, then you might have something. Unfortunately for you, your favorite passage must be taken in context with the rest of the document. The specific powers of congress are listed in detail. The general welfare clause is not even an enumerated power, it is simply clarifying information, and is intended to work within the powers granted. If you disagree, then you are saying that the founders directly contradicted themselves.

Can you show me where is says they are not authorized to do so?
No. You can not.

Unlike you, I can read and understand the entire document, not simply the one line that when taken out of context I think justifies the authoritarian welfare state that I want our government to be.

 

[citizenzen]

So, the farmers did not get their "welfare". However, the people of the country saw the plight of the farmers, took up donations, and gathered 10 times the amount needed.

That is how it is supposed to work.

Almost makes you wonder how come there were ever poor in the first place.

If the private sector could end poverty, why hasn't it already? It should even be easier with the help of the government.

Yet the problem is still with us. Why is that OT?

 

[citizenzen]

Reread my question carefully, and then reread your answer.

...if the general welfare clause is a blank check for congressional power, then please tell me why the framers would have bothered to specify the powers given to congress. Why would they bother?

Your question is ridiculous in the first place as no "blank check" exists. You ask if the general welfare clause is a blank check, then why would the Founders have specified that power belong to congress? Because it obviously isn't a blank check. The Founders would not have given absolute power to any branch of the government.

They provided the checks and balances between the branches of government and the constitution as the supreme law of the land. And the people provide the final check on power as they can vote in new representatives if they feel their will is being usurped.

So please, let's try to operate in the real world and not some Glenn Beck nightmarish delusion. I'll be here waiting for you, if you decide to join me.