Madison was not the sole author of the Constitution. I have never heard anyone say that other than you, ever.
And what everyone seems to be missing is the power to tax and spend is not a general police power, though everyone here seems to treat it as such. The framers of the Constitution were more concerned with questions of government intrusion into states' and citizens' rights. Taxing, then spending that money on something, does not rise to the serious intrusions they were worried about.
Correction: obviously forming a Federal government had something to do with it, I meant that the belief in mere existence of such did not make one a Federalist; it was the opinion as to the ROLE of that federal government that defined and distinguished the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.
Wow, you really are clutching at straws here. Federalist had a very specific meaning back then, and being an advocate of forming a Federal government had nothing to do with it; and what does the "modern sense" have to do with the issue anyway?
I have provided quotes by two others already. How many do you think you need
You made the statement that "with the exception of Hamilton and just one or two others" the framers of the Constitution interpreted the General Welfare clause at issue just as Madison did. There were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Jefferson wasn't even a delegate; he was in France at the time.
Therefore you provided the opinion of ONE of the 55 delegates, and now with a dramatic sigh imply that I am unreasonable for believing that it follows that 52 of the other delegates believed as he did.
Ahh, the armchair wikipedia scholar. I would presume NeutronCowboy is referring first to the fact that appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy where the authority appealed to is speaking on something outside their sphere of expertise, or the arguer is ignoring a split in the view of the authorities. If wikipedia says differently, then wikipedia is wrong.
Since I did neither (I referred to the authors of the Constitution, people who have made study of the Constitution their life's work, and people who are explicitly authorized by the Constitution to interpret it), there was no fallacy. You failed to acknowledge a legitimate difference of opinions in the framers, while relying exclusively on Madison and Jefferson and ignoring everyone else involved with its drafting and 200 years of subsequent legal interpretation.
The irrelevant one CowboyNeutron is referring to is therefore your "appeal to the masses" argument. I did not say the majority of people believe as I do, I said the majority of authorities do. For all I know 95% of the population of the United States believes as you do, but if so they would be wrong.
Spare me the 8th grade version of history. Your "evidence" is a joke; YOU KEEP CITING THE SAME PERSON. JAMES MADISON WAS NOT THE SOLE AND ULTIMATE ARBITER OF THE CONSTITUTION. Why is it so hard for you to understand this? Yes, you very obviously have not ever learned this in a formal educational environment, but I'm trying to put it in as simple terms as I can for you. And it's not a question of lack of education, there are plenty of people with 6 grade educations who can get it through their heads that the creation of the Constitution was a collective effort by people with a lot of different ideas of what it should mean. Even Constitutional scholars who agree with you would never rely on such a simplistic argument as "uhhh well James Madison said it."
At least read the thing itself. You really don't understand that the power to tax and spend for the general welfare WAS a delegated power?
So the Supreme Court is wrong when they say the General Welfare clause is not limited to furthering the enumerated powers, but they're right when they say the 16th amendment created no new taxes?
By the way, the 16th amendment is very, very clear:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
When the Supreme Court said the 16th amendment created no new ability to tax, they simply meant Congress had the authority to levy income taxes already.
It's hilarious how many slashdotters are accusing me of not knowing history, and then follow that with "proof" that the Constitution doesn't mean what the clear language states based on James Madison's (or Thomas Jefferson's) say-so.
You all have to realize that the Constitution was not drafted by a hivemind that had a single intent. There were bitter fights over what it should say and what it should mean. Madison and Jefferson represented only one faction. Hamilton represented another, which interpreted it very broadly. Picking and choosing which signer's intent should govern is idiotic; in these cases you have to look at the plain language of the document. They could have limited the General Welfare Clause to furthering the enumerated powers. They decided not to.
Think for yourself. Research the original sources; don't just grab sound bites off fringe libertarian blogs or wherever you pasted that from t is 1:30 AM, so I am not going to teach you too much history, but be assured that the Hamiltonian view of the general welfare clause was pretty much operative from the beginning, from Washington's administration on. The Jefferson and Madison administrations don't change that.
You're not putting it in historical context. Your assertion is unsupported by your purported proof. James Madison was ONE of the framers of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, another framer, had the opposite belief. They both signed the Constitution; why should Madison's interpretation be the operative one, when the plain language of the document itself does not limit the spending power only to the otherwise enumerated powers?
Ugh, why can libertarians never seem to engage in honest debate? You've completely shifted the goalposts and created a strawman to boot; I was responding to the specific accusation that BY DEFINITION the government doesn't produce anything. It was a ridiculous argument. You even AGREE now that this government agency produces something. Yet you still say I'm "wrong" because they purportedly are less efficient. Where did I argue that the government is more efficient than private industry?
The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition. - Alexander Hamilton
Government is a bureaucracy. By definition, government produces exactly nothing. It takes from others in order to perform its functions.
Absolute nonsense. Government does not "by definition" produce nothing. "Lack of production" does not figure into any sane definition of government. Easy to come up with an example disproving your assertion; look at the Army Corps of Engineers. They produce plenty, and they're part of the government.
The Constitution allows Congress to spend money to provide for the general welfare of the United States; the health care insurance mandate is arguably unconstitutional, but the other things you mentioned are allowed.
Especially don't complain about them while you're in line at the airport waiting to go through security.
Replace "especially" with "only". Speaking out against the TSA is not going to get you in trouble anywhere except waiting on line to go through security. Let's keep some perspective.
I have both, and I find the kindle's screen noticeably clearer and crisper. Of course, now my Sony's battery doesn't hold a charge it's kind of useless.
Slashdot Mirror
Madison was not the sole author of the Constitution. I have never heard anyone say that other than you, ever.
And what everyone seems to be missing is the power to tax and spend is not a general police power, though everyone here seems to treat it as such. The framers of the Constitution were more concerned with questions of government intrusion into states' and citizens' rights. Taxing, then spending that money on something, does not rise to the serious intrusions they were worried about.
Correction: obviously forming a Federal government had something to do with it, I meant that the belief in mere existence of such did not make one a Federalist; it was the opinion as to the ROLE of that federal government that defined and distinguished the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.
Wow, you really are clutching at straws here. Federalist had a very specific meaning back then, and being an advocate of forming a Federal government had nothing to do with it; and what does the "modern sense" have to do with the issue anyway?
I have provided quotes by two others already. How many do you think you need
You made the statement that "with the exception of Hamilton and just one or two others" the framers of the Constitution interpreted the General Welfare clause at issue just as Madison did. There were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Jefferson wasn't even a delegate; he was in France at the time.
Therefore you provided the opinion of ONE of the 55 delegates, and now with a dramatic sigh imply that I am unreasonable for believing that it follows that 52 of the other delegates believed as he did.
Ahh, the armchair wikipedia scholar. I would presume NeutronCowboy is referring first to the fact that appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy where the authority appealed to is speaking on something outside their sphere of expertise, or the arguer is ignoring a split in the view of the authorities. If wikipedia says differently, then wikipedia is wrong.
Since I did neither (I referred to the authors of the Constitution, people who have made study of the Constitution their life's work, and people who are explicitly authorized by the Constitution to interpret it), there was no fallacy. You failed to acknowledge a legitimate difference of opinions in the framers, while relying exclusively on Madison and Jefferson and ignoring everyone else involved with its drafting and 200 years of subsequent legal interpretation.
The irrelevant one CowboyNeutron is referring to is therefore your "appeal to the masses" argument. I did not say the majority of people believe as I do, I said the majority of authorities do. For all I know 95% of the population of the United States believes as you do, but if so they would be wrong.
Spare me the 8th grade version of history. Your "evidence" is a joke; YOU KEEP CITING THE SAME PERSON. JAMES MADISON WAS NOT THE SOLE AND ULTIMATE ARBITER OF THE CONSTITUTION. Why is it so hard for you to understand this? Yes, you very obviously have not ever learned this in a formal educational environment, but I'm trying to put it in as simple terms as I can for you. And it's not a question of lack of education, there are plenty of people with 6 grade educations who can get it through their heads that the creation of the Constitution was a collective effort by people with a lot of different ideas of what it should mean. Even Constitutional scholars who agree with you would never rely on such a simplistic argument as "uhhh well James Madison said it." At least read the thing itself. You really don't understand that the power to tax and spend for the general welfare WAS a delegated power?
I mean I agree that we shouldn't chain ourselves to what we think a bunch of 18th century people thought.
Yes, I, most Supreme Court Justices, most Presidents, most Congresspeople, and most legal scholars are wrong, but you are right. http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html
there are literally boatloads of historical evidence proving you wrong
And yet the Supreme Court and the vast majority of Congresspeople and Presidents take my side. Yet we're all wrong and you're right.
So the Supreme Court is wrong when they say the General Welfare clause is not limited to furthering the enumerated powers, but they're right when they say the 16th amendment created no new taxes?
By the way, the 16th amendment is very, very clear: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
When the Supreme Court said the 16th amendment created no new ability to tax, they simply meant Congress had the authority to levy income taxes already.
And that judge is dead and buried and every Supreme Court case to address the General Welfare Clause has held it is, like it says, "General."
Then go ahead, provide a citation that he was a "very small minority in his thinking" and it was just Hamilton "and just one or two others."
Go for it. I pick the expansive view.
It's hilarious how many slashdotters are accusing me of not knowing history, and then follow that with "proof" that the Constitution doesn't mean what the clear language states based on James Madison's (or Thomas Jefferson's) say-so. You all have to realize that the Constitution was not drafted by a hivemind that had a single intent. There were bitter fights over what it should say and what it should mean. Madison and Jefferson represented only one faction. Hamilton represented another, which interpreted it very broadly. Picking and choosing which signer's intent should govern is idiotic; in these cases you have to look at the plain language of the document. They could have limited the General Welfare Clause to furthering the enumerated powers. They decided not to.
Think for yourself. Research the original sources; don't just grab sound bites off fringe libertarian blogs or wherever you pasted that from t is 1:30 AM, so I am not going to teach you too much history, but be assured that the Hamiltonian view of the general welfare clause was pretty much operative from the beginning, from Washington's administration on. The Jefferson and Madison administrations don't change that.
You're not putting it in historical context. Your assertion is unsupported by your purported proof. James Madison was ONE of the framers of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, another framer, had the opposite belief. They both signed the Constitution; why should Madison's interpretation be the operative one, when the plain language of the document itself does not limit the spending power only to the otherwise enumerated powers?
Ugh, why can libertarians never seem to engage in honest debate? You've completely shifted the goalposts and created a strawman to boot; I was responding to the specific accusation that BY DEFINITION the government doesn't produce anything. It was a ridiculous argument. You even AGREE now that this government agency produces something. Yet you still say I'm "wrong" because they purportedly are less efficient. Where did I argue that the government is more efficient than private industry?
Fine and that is a legitimate argument, I was responding to the accusation that they're "unconstitutional."
The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition. - Alexander Hamilton
Government is a bureaucracy. By definition, government produces exactly nothing. It takes from others in order to perform its functions.
Absolute nonsense. Government does not "by definition" produce nothing. "Lack of production" does not figure into any sane definition of government. Easy to come up with an example disproving your assertion; look at the Army Corps of Engineers. They produce plenty, and they're part of the government.
Which part? The general welfare part or the halth care insurance mandate part?
The Constitution allows Congress to spend money to provide for the general welfare of the United States; the health care insurance mandate is arguably unconstitutional, but the other things you mentioned are allowed.
The military is just about the only actual spending authorized by the Constitution at the federal level
Congress has broad spending powers under the Constitution, and can spend money for the general welfare of the citizenry.
Especially don't complain about them while you're in line at the airport waiting to go through security.
Replace "especially" with "only". Speaking out against the TSA is not going to get you in trouble anywhere except waiting on line to go through security. Let's keep some perspective.
I have both, and I find the kindle's screen noticeably clearer and crisper. Of course, now my Sony's battery doesn't hold a charge it's kind of useless.
Interesting, I have the opposite problem; I find it far easier to buy books by impulse on my kindle than in the store.