if the unions get their way, say buh-bye to better quality lower-priced stuff.
It doesn't matter anyhoo. This week, under cover of QE2, the Federal Reserve will lie thru their teeth about inflation and justify another several months of 0% overnight interest rates to prolong government borrowing; however, QE2 will run out a week later and that will put upward pressure on interest rates.
The US government can only get away with printing more dollars while the dollar is the world's reserve currency. When interest rates rise back to historically normal levels, it will make the debt service the largest item on the budget. If we have runaway inflation like the 70s/80s, government revenues won't even cover interest on the debt. In the latter case, the dollar would IMMEDIATELY be removed as the world's reserve currency and you will be able to stick a fork in the American Empire. Almost overnight, the American standard of living would drop at least 25%.
Under these conditions, the only program that the government will afford is the one that keeps them in power--the military. Austerity measures will essentially eliminate all social programs...except that each precinct will get a visit from a military truck filled with government food rations.
Could it happen? Look up the phrase: normalcy bias
Bill would say that you “fall prey to the panic fanned by the usual fear-mongering doomsayers,”. You know the answer is more regulations and higher taxes on corporations and the rich.
Come on, everyone knows the answer to our problems is ALWAYS MORE REGULATIONS. That is all the government fascists know.
Hawk wrote:
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD
"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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..."
I hardly think "general welfare" means "stuff". As carefully as the words were chosen, ONLY YOU would interpret it as though it "could just as well have been left out". .
Wishful thinking and a strong bias on your part will not change the constitution. It seems you are the one who reads and interprets with a bias.
You are an incredibly smart person. In all your flare and with all your writting skill, you did no better than provide a Limbaughish spin.
"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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..."
As it was described by Madison in the Fed-Papers, the yellow part could just as well be substituted with "to pay for stuff"...or how about "to pay for legitimate expenses" or "to pay for the expenses in the execution of their duties". You can also completely remove it and still get what they intended to do...give Congress the power to tax...PERIOD.
Actually, the wording was not carefully chosen as Madison alluded in the Fed-Papers...it was paraphrased from the Articles Of Confederation.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Hawk wrote:
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD
"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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..."
I hardly think "general welfare" means "stuff". As carefully as the words were chosen, ONLY YOU would interpret it as though it "could just as well have been left out". .
Wishful thinking and a strong bias on your part will not change the constitution. It seems you are the one who reads and interprets with a bias.
You are an incredibly smart person. In all your flare and with all your writting skill, you did no better than provide a Limbaughish spin.
Several states were concerned that people might take a liberal progressive interpretation, so Madison explained why they didn't need to worry. This is possibly the worst incidence of political naivety and the biggest blunder in US legislative history. Madison disagrees with you and made it quite plain that this was never intended to be an enumeration or power...here is the excerpt from the Fed-Papers:
Some, who have not denied the
necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce
attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is
defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay
and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts,
and provide for the common defense and general welfare of
the United States,’’ amounts to an unlimited commission to
exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for
the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof
could be given of the distress under which these writers labor
for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers
of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the
general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection
might have had some color for it; though it would have been
difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing
an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy
the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to
regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances,
must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money
for the general welfare. ‘’But what color can the objection have,
when a specification of the objects alluded to by these
general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated
by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of
the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give
meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the
same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning;
and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained
in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions
be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose
could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted,
if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding
general power? Nothing is more natural nor common
than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and
qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration
of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the
general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound
and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced
to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection
or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take
the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.
Since I know that you aren't a steakhead, Bill, I expect that I won't need to post Madison's point for a 3rd time?
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Hawk wrote:There is no doubt that Madison and Hamilton disagreed in the subject of "general welfare".
The quote Joe gave is from the debates when writing the constitution took place in Philadelphia. It is from the notes of the justice who was there and published years later in a newspaper. I'm not saying Joe is misquoting him, But there is a possibility the note writer had his own agenda. Not everyone agreed with Madison on the subject.
Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1755 or 1757[1] – July 12, 1804) was a Founding Father, soldier, economist, political philosopher, one of America's first constitutional lawyers and the first United States Secretary of the Treasury. He has been described as one who "more than any other designed the Government of the United States".
"Implied powers, in the United States, are those powers authorized by a legal document (from the Constitution) which, while not stated, are seemed to be implied by powers expressly stated. When George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the First Bank of the United States against the protests[1] of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers.[2] Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the "general welfare clause" and the "necessary and proper clause" gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed his Bank Bill into law."
ISN'T THAT INTERESTING Founding Father Alexander Hamilton said, "... it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies." Now where did you hear that argument before ?
And Hamilton, as a driving force of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers says. "... the "general welfare clause" and the "necessary and proper clause" gave elasticity to the constitution." WOW ! A founding Father no less says that !
Hamilton also proposed ideas in tariffs that where opposed by Madison, yet later supported by Madison. Huh, he changed his mind .
EDIT:
lonewolf:"When you read "stronger central government", they were writing strictly in the context of stronger than the Articles of Confederation. Under the articles, they couldn't even raise a national army. The "stronger central government" that Hamilton argued for was in the context of creating a national military and did not go much further than that. More confirmation bias? Or perhaps an out-of-context sound bite? "
Seems you are WRONG ! What I don't get is that you are so smart, yet you seem to get things wrong so often. Are you just wrong or are you attempting to use your intelligence to mislead us ?
You are unbelieveable with the TEXT-BITES there Bill. Here is Hamilton's entire letter on the subject with the limitations in yellow. Note that he only includes those topics that are enumerated in the Constitution with implied powers. He never supported the idea that "general welfare" was a carte blanche to legislate anything they want. That was all made up by the socialist liberal progressives.
Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures, Document 21:
"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." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." 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.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.
The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication."
--------------------------------------
I doubt there are many who disagree with implied powers as stated here; however, there are many who don't have a full grasp of its meaning and its limitations. Then there are those who simply didn't want to be limited by it.
The US government did not legally acknowledge the General Welfare clause as a defining phrase until in 1937 when FDR threatened the destruction of the Supreme Court as we know it. As is typical with liberal progressives, the means are irrelevant so long as we get their ends.
Had there been any effective opposition whatsoever to the FDR socialists at the time, he probably would have been impeached.
If it was up to me, I would have hung FDR for treason.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Jeff, I read The Manufacturers Report. Madison was against using any of it.
I read Madison's opinion on "general welfare". It was only his opinion, not every one's opinion.
It seems that when Madison and Jefferson actually have to deal with reality, THEY CHANGE THEIR MINDS !
Madison was AGAINST the Bank Of America too. Hamilton used the "elasticity of the Constitution" to help our first president George Washington form The Bank of America. I guess Washington favored the "elasticity of the constitution" that you are against. I am aligned with Hamilton, Washington and Madison as he gradually changed his mind. Madison realized that which you do not. He realized that being too rigid in ones opinions is not always the best thing for the US.
When MADISON was faced with the real world he realized his opinions were WRONG. Now if he realized it, why can't you ?
The bank's charter expired in 1811 under President James Madison. The bill to recharter failed in the House of Representatives by one vote, 65 to 64, on January 24, 1811. In 1816, however, Madison revived it in the form of the Second Bank of the United States because of rising debts from the War of 1812 and ineffective state banks
Well what do you know, in the real world Madison formed The Second Bank of America. Go figure. A man was against it until he saw a NEED for it.
MADISON DISAGREED WITH HIMSELF IN THE FACE OF REALITY !
I can't emphasize enough how little Hamilton had to do with the actual drafting of the Constitution. About the only suggestion he voiced at the convention was the idea of a "President for life"...to which he was labelled a "monarchist"...presumably the era's word for "liberal progressive". He infuriated the other two delegates from NY to the point that they left the convention early and he could not vote on the Constitution by himself.
Thankfully, he never became president either
What really gets me about Hamilton is that he made no mention of "implied powers" when he did his work on the Federalist Papers. It was like he was holding that back from "the People of the state of New York".
He became the 1st person to try to undermine the constitution...what a weasly rat. Of course, weasly rats didn't last long back then...see Aaron Burr....
I am very familiar with the BOA incident. What you don't seem to understand about it is that the implied powers works with it because the Supreme Court's findings are based on the explicit enumeration:
'To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign
Coin, and fi x the Standard of Weights and Measures'
It wasn't until the Supreme Court was threatened with destruction and extorted in 1937 that they relented and allowed the "general welfare" clause any independent meaning.
Another weasly rat, FDR should have been hung from the highest yardarm for usurping the United States.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
lonewolf wrote:I can't emphasize enough how little Hamilton had to do with the actual drafting of the Constitution. About the only suggestion he voiced at the convention was the idea of a "President for life"...to which he was labelled a "monarchist"...presumably the era's word for "liberal progressive". He infuriated the other two delegates from NY to the point that they left the convention early and he could not vote on the Constitution by himself.
Thankfully, he never became president either
What really gets me about Hamilton is that he made no mention of "implied powers" when he did his work on the Federalist Papers. It was like he was holding that back from "the People of the state of New York".
He became the 1st person to try to undermine the constitution...what a weasly rat. Of course, weasly rats didn't last long back then...see Aaron Burr....
I am very familiar with the BOA incident. What you don't seem to understand about it is that the implied powers works with it because the Supreme Court's findings are based on the explicit enumeration:
'To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign
Coin, and fi x the Standard of Weights and Measures'
It wasn't until the Supreme Court was threatened with destruction and extorted in 1937 that they relented and allowed the "general welfare" clause any independent meaning.
Another weasly rat, FDR should have been hung from the highest yardarm for usurping the United States.
Interesting, no comments on Jefferson or Madison changing their minds ? Just spew insults. Is that you Frank ?
lonewolf wrote:I can't emphasize enough how little Hamilton had to do with the actual drafting of the Constitution. About the only suggestion he voiced at the convention was the idea of a "President for life"...to which he was labelled a "monarchist"...presumably the era's word for "liberal progressive". He infuriated the other two delegates from NY to the point that they left the convention early and he could not vote on the Constitution by himself.
Thankfully, he never became president either
What really gets me about Hamilton is that he made no mention of "implied powers" when he did his work on the Federalist Papers. It was like he was holding that back from "the People of the state of New York".
He became the 1st person to try to undermine the constitution...what a weasly rat. Of course, weasly rats didn't last long back then...see Aaron Burr....
I am very familiar with the BOA incident. What you don't seem to understand about it is that the implied powers works with it because the Supreme Court's findings are based on the explicit enumeration:
'To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign
Coin, and fi x the Standard of Weights and Measures'
It wasn't until the Supreme Court was threatened with destruction and extorted in 1937 that they relented and allowed the "general welfare" clause any independent meaning.
Another weasly rat, FDR should have been hung from the highest yardarm for usurping the United States.
Interesting, no comments on Jefferson or Madison changing their minds ? Just spew insults. Is that you Frank ?
Take another look...BOA...actually it wasn't the Bank Of America...it was the National Bank of The United States. I don't care much about people changing their minds...unless they planned to change their minds.
What insults? You mean calling those dead guys weasly rats? They were weasly rats. I can't emphasize enough how little Hamilton had to do with the Constitution at the convention and how much Roosevelt did to destroy it.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
lonewolf wrote:I can't emphasize enough how little Hamilton had to do with the actual drafting of the Constitution. About the only suggestion he voiced at the convention was the idea of a "President for life"...to which he was labelled a "monarchist"...presumably the era's word for "liberal progressive". He infuriated the other two delegates from NY to the point that they left the convention early and he could not vote on the Constitution by himself.
Thankfully, he never became president either
What really gets me about Hamilton is that he made no mention of "implied powers" when he did his work on the Federalist Papers. It was like he was holding that back from "the People of the state of New York".
He became the 1st person to try to undermine the constitution...what a weasly rat. Of course, weasly rats didn't last long back then...see Aaron Burr....
I am very familiar with the BOA incident. What you don't seem to understand about it is that the implied powers works with it because the Supreme Court's findings are based on the explicit enumeration:
'To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign
Coin, and fi x the Standard of Weights and Measures'
It wasn't until the Supreme Court was threatened with destruction and extorted in 1937 that they relented and allowed the "general welfare" clause any independent meaning.
Another weasly rat, FDR should have been hung from the highest yardarm for usurping the United States.
Interesting, no comments on Jefferson or Madison changing their minds ? Just spew insults. Is that you Frank ?
Take another look...BOA...actually it wasn't the Bank Of America...it was the National Bank of The United States. I don't care much about people changing their minds...unless they planned to change their minds.
What insults? You mean calling those dead guys weasly rats? They were weasly rats. I can't emphasize enough how little Hamilton had to do with the Constitution at the convention and how much Roosevelt did to destroy it.
Your god Madison did not plan to change his mind, but dealing with the reality of being president, he recognised he had to change his mind. Madison understood that his opinions would fail in the real world. Just as your hanging on to his old ideas before he changed his mind is an attitude that belongs in a fantasy utopia.
Jeff, I believe Madison is the weasel for writing IN SECRET the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, undermining the constitution by saying any state could deem anything the federal government did as unconstitutional. He couldn't stand up for his opinions ? Oh yeah, Jefferson joined him in this SECRET writing. Weasels...
James Madison in the Federalist Papers regarding the power given to the federal government:
"No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included."
Madison led the unsuccessful attempt to block Hamilton's proposed Bank of the United States, arguing the new Constitution did not explicitly allow the federal government to form a bank.[65] In 1798, Madison drafted a resolution for Virginia declaring the Alien and Sedition Acts to be unconstitutional and noted that "states, in contesting obnoxious laws, should 'interpose for arresting the progress of the evil.'"[66] This, according to Ron Chernow, "was a breathtaking evolution for a man who had pleaded at the Constitutional Convention that the federal government should possess a veto over state laws."
Some historians argue that Madison changed radically from a nationally oriented ally of Hamilton in 1787–88 to a states'-rights–oriented opponent of a strong national government by 1795 and then back to his original view while president.
Some historians accuse Madison of abandoning strict constructionism in 1815, and saying that it was not the text of the Constitution that mattered but the expressed will of the people. Despite attacks by "Quids" or "Old Republicans" such as John Randolph of Roanoke who still held to strict constructionism, Madison now favored a national bank, a standing professional army and a federal program of internal improvements as advocated by Henry Clay
Faced with the real world, Madison became, dare I say it, a liberal.
"a national bank, a standing professional army and a federal program of internal improvements"----is very far from a $14.4 Trillion Debt due to unlimited and unfunded government entitlements.
undercoverjoe wrote:"a national bank, a standing professional army and a federal program of internal improvements"----is very far from a $14.4 Trillion Debt due to unlimited and unfunded government entitlements.
"Internal improvements" are NOT Libertarian or conservative principals. They are progressive principals.
An internal improvement is some constructed object that augments a nation's economic infrastructure; examples include airports, canals, dams, dikes, pipelines, railroads, roads, tunnels, and artificial harbours.
It can also include such things as: mines, schools, hospitals, water purification and sewage treatment centers.
I repeat, when faced with reality Madison saw he needed to change his view of the constitution and closer resembled Hamilton's view. First he was with Hamilton, then against Hamilton, then after being president became more aligned with Hamilton's view, as am I.
BTW Joe, If we had kept Ronald Reagan's taxes and not had the George W Bush Iraq war, how much lower would our national debt be ? You can round that off in $Trillions if you'd like. AND the question IS rhetorical, so you don't even have to avoid it.
undercoverjoe wrote:"a national bank, a standing professional army and a federal program of internal improvements"----is very far from a $14.4 Trillion Debt due to unlimited and unfunded government entitlements.
"Internal improvements" are NOT Libertarian or conservative principals. They are progressive principals.
An internal improvement is some constructed object that augments a nation's economic infrastructure; examples include airports, canals, dams, dikes, pipelines, railroads, roads, tunnels, and artificial harbours.
It can also include such things as: mines, schools, hospitals, water purification and sewage treatment centers.
I repeat, when faced with reality Madison saw he needed to change his view of the constitution and closer resembled Hamilton's view. First he was with Hamilton, then against Hamilton, then after being president became more aligned with Hamilton's view, as am I.
BTW Joe, If we had kept Ronald Reagan's taxes and not had the George W Bush Iraq war, how much lower would our national debt be ? You can round that off in $Trillions if you'd like. AND the question IS rhetorical, so you don't even have to avoid it.
I think you are very wrong in your misuse of logic. Next, you will be telling us that Tommy Jefferson was a socialist and Marxist, before Marx was even born.
Nice trick, falsely claiming Madison was a liberal progressive, and then you can say he had the same views as you. How far are you going to take this fantasy?
undercoverjoe wrote:I think you are very wrong in your misuse of logic. Next, you will be telling us that Tommy Jefferson was a socialist and Marxist, before Marx was even born.
Nice trick, falsely claiming Madison was a liberal progressive, and then you can say he had the same views as you. How far are you going to take this fantasy?
Madison supported internal improvements greatly alarming old school party members who were strict constitutionalists. Madison, faced with reality became a "loose constitutionalists" as was Hamilton. Is that progressive or conservative ?
"Internal improvements" are NOT Libertarian or conservative principals. They are progressive principals.
An internal improvement is some constructed object that augments a nation's economic infrastructure; examples include airports, canals, dams, dikes, pipelines, railroads, roads, tunnels, and artificial harbours.
How many time should I repeat this before you get it ? Are these Libertarian principals ?
undercoverjoe wrote:"a national bank, a standing professional army and a federal program of internal improvements"----is very far from a $14.4 Trillion Debt due to unlimited and unfunded government entitlements.
"Internal improvements" are NOT Libertarian or conservative principals. They are progressive principals.
An internal improvement is some constructed object that augments a nation's economic infrastructure; examples include airports, canals, dams, dikes, pipelines, railroads, roads, tunnels, and artificial harbours.
It can also include such things as: mines, schools, hospitals, water purification and sewage treatment centers.
I repeat, when faced with reality Madison saw he needed to change his view of the constitution and closer resembled Hamilton's view. First he was with Hamilton, then against Hamilton, then after being president became more aligned with Hamilton's view, as am I.
BTW Joe, If we had kept Ronald Reagan's taxes and not had the George W Bush Iraq war, how much lower would our national debt be ? You can round that off in $Trillions if you'd like. AND the question IS rhetorical, so you don't even have to avoid it.
I think you are very wrong in your misuse of logic. Next, you will be telling us that Tommy Jefferson was a socialist and Marxist, before Marx was even born.
Nice trick, falsely claiming Madison was a liberal progressive, and then you can say he had the same views as you. How far are you going to take this fantasy?
Thomas Jefferson Unconstitutionally purchased Louisiana putting the US in debt. Libertarian or Progressive ?
Hawk wrote:James Madison in the Federalist Papers regarding the power given to the federal government:
"No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included."
Madison led the unsuccessful attempt to block Hamilton's proposed Bank of the United States, arguing the new Constitution did not explicitly allow the federal government to form a bank.[65] In 1798, Madison drafted a resolution for Virginia declaring the Alien and Sedition Acts to be unconstitutional and noted that "states, in contesting obnoxious laws, should 'interpose for arresting the progress of the evil.'"[66] This, according to Ron Chernow, "was a breathtaking evolution for a man who had pleaded at the Constitutional Convention that the federal government should possess a veto over state laws."
Some historians argue that Madison changed radically from a nationally oriented ally of Hamilton in 1787–88 to a states'-rights–oriented opponent of a strong national government by 1795 and then back to his original view while president.
Some historians accuse Madison of abandoning strict constructionism in 1815, and saying that it was not the text of the Constitution that mattered but the expressed will of the people. Despite attacks by "Quids" or "Old Republicans" such as John Randolph of Roanoke who still held to strict constructionism, Madison now favored a national bank, a standing professional army and a federal program of internal improvements as advocated by Henry Clay
Faced with the real world, Madison became, dare I say it, a liberal.
No kidding Bill. For the last time, I will try to explain to you the history of this and what Mr. Madison was referring to.
There are 17 powers specified in the Constitution in section 8. In Madison's day, the federal government was limited to these 17 enumerations. This is what Madison was referring to as "general powers" and where the "implied powers" idea came about. Implied powers states that as long as it was a means to the 17 enumerations or directly related to them, a law was constitutional. I have never argued against the correct explanation of "implied powers". Its the incorrect or not fully understood versions that I have a problem with.
He was not referring to the "general welfare" clause because the "general welfare" clause was not even close to any legal power until 1937. 1937 Bill. 1937....the 1st successful invokation of the "general welfare" clause. Not 1815. 1937. The general welfare clause was given power in 1937. Did I mention that 1937 was the 1st time that the "general welfare" clause was given any power? What was that?
1937?
The power given to the "general welfare" clause is mutually exclusive with the implied powers issue. For instance, after "general welfare" was legally accepted as a constitutional "authorization to spend", it was subject to "implied powers".
Although they can spend money like Imelda Marcos at a shoe store, the federal government is prohibited from writing binding legislation on issues like welfare and education. It can only set the rules and if any states don't want to go along with their rules, they can opt out of the money.
You see, in 1937, with the proverbial gun to its head, the Supreme Court essentially gave Congress carte blanche to spend money any way they saw fit. Sadly, it will cost us everything to learn the lesson from this mistake.
Interest rates will go up 5 points and poof! buh-bye fiscal status. Your "redistribution of wealth" will be reduced to neighborhood military cheese trucks. That is only if they are sucessful at repealing Obamacare...if not...
...what day was Soylent Green day again? Was it Tuesday or Thursday?
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Hawk wrote:James Madison in the Federalist Papers regarding the power given to the federal government:
"No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included."
Madison led the unsuccessful attempt to block Hamilton's proposed Bank of the United States, arguing the new Constitution did not explicitly allow the federal government to form a bank.[65] In 1798, Madison drafted a resolution for Virginia declaring the Alien and Sedition Acts to be unconstitutional and noted that "states, in contesting obnoxious laws, should 'interpose for arresting the progress of the evil.'"[66] This, according to Ron Chernow, "was a breathtaking evolution for a man who had pleaded at the Constitutional Convention that the federal government should possess a veto over state laws."
Some historians argue that Madison changed radically from a nationally oriented ally of Hamilton in 1787–88 to a states'-rights–oriented opponent of a strong national government by 1795 and then back to his original view while president.
Some historians accuse Madison of abandoning strict constructionism in 1815, and saying that it was not the text of the Constitution that mattered but the expressed will of the people. Despite attacks by "Quids" or "Old Republicans" such as John Randolph of Roanoke who still held to strict constructionism, Madison now favored a national bank, a standing professional army and a federal program of internal improvements as advocated by Henry Clay
Faced with the real world, Madison became, dare I say it, a liberal.
No kidding Bill. For the last time, I will try to explain to you the history of this and what Mr. Madison was referring to.
There are 17 powers specified in the Constitution in section 8. In Madison's day, the federal government was limited to these 17 enumerations. This is what Madison was referring to as "general powers" and where the "implied powers" idea came about. Implied powers states that as long as it was a means to the 17 enumerations or directly related to them, a law was constitutional. I have never argued against the correct explanation of "implied powers". Its the incorrect or not fully understood versions that I have a problem with.
He was not referring to the "general welfare" clause because the "general welfare" clause was not even close to any legal power until 1937. 1937 Bill. 1937....the 1st successful invokation of the "general welfare" clause. Not 1815. 1937. The general welfare clause was given power in 1937. Did I mention that 1937 was the 1st time that the "general welfare" clause was given any power? What was that?
1937?
The power given to the "general welfare" clause is mutually exclusive with the implied powers issue. For instance, after "general welfare" was legally accepted as a constitutional "authorization to spend", it was subject to "implied powers".
Although they can spend money like Imelda Marcos at a shoe store, the federal government is prohibited from writing binding legislation on issues like welfare and education. It can only set the rules and if any states don't want to go along with their rules, they can opt out of the money.
You see, in 1937, with the proverbial gun to its head, the Supreme Court essentially gave Congress carte blanche to spend money any way they saw fit. Sadly, it will cost us everything to learn the lesson from this mistake.
Interest rates will go up 5 points and poof! buh-bye fiscal status. Your "redistribution of wealth" will be reduced to neighborhood military cheese trucks. That is only if they are sucessful at repealing Obamacare...if not...
...what day was Soylent Green day again? Was it Tuesday or Thursday?
Nowhere did I say anything in the post you quote about Madison and general welfare or implied powers. When you quote Madison it is important to say what the date is because he changed his mind.
Remember this. Madison was for the ability of the federal government to have the power to veto any state law. Then he was for any state to have the ability and power to veto any federal law. Then He was for a strong federal government supporting federal monies for internal improvements. Just because you pick and choose Madison quotes from one Madison era, dosen't mean he stood by it. In fact he didn't ! He changed his mind.
Interesting reading. Obama will upset me if he doesn't follow through on his promise to go after off shore taxes.
The Real Deficit Culprits: Offshoring and Corporate Tax Evasion
Thursday
Apr 21, 2011
1:06 pm By Jack Rasmus
What’s the connection between the 25 million Americans still jobless today, U.S. multinational corporations and the estimated $1.6 trillion 2012 budget deficit?
The deficit and budget cutting have been given massive amount of attention in the press. At least a dozen different proposals—from the Obama administration, Republicans in the House, Democrats in the Senate, deficit commissions,and others—are now debated daily. But as proposals and programs for deficit cutting at the expense of social programs proliferate, no one is discussing how creating jobs for the 25 million currently unemployed would essentially resolve the budget deficit and eliminate altogether the need to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.
One of the major causes of current high, chronic levels of unemployment in the United States is offshoring by U.S. corporations. Less well known, however, is that these same multinational corporations are a significant cause of not only millions of lost jobs, but of trillions of dollars of lost tax revenue as well—thus contributing significantly to current and future budget deficits.
A recent report by the U.S. Commerce Dept., a pro-business source, indicated that big multinationals like General Electric, Caterpillar, and big tech and drug companies over the past decade reduced their American work forces by 2.9 million while increasing their jobs offshore by 2.4 million. Apart from the harm inflicted on US working families, this development has resulted in the loss of huge amounts of tax revenue to the federal government, contributing in a major way to the country's current budget deficit and rising government debt levels.
For example, if one averages the total 2.9 million jobs lost in the U.S. over 10 years, and assumes an average pay of $43,000 a year over the decade, assuming further an average 20 percent personal income tax rate, the 2.9 job loss equates to an average annual loss in total income in the US Treasury of around $25 billion a year. That’s a total revenue loss of about $250 billion over the past decade alone.
That total does not include the loss of additional state and local tax revenue, or the additional federal revenue sharing with the states that was required the past decadeby the federal government to make up for the state-local tax revenue loss.
For the coming decade, 2010-2019, the ‘lost tax revenue tab’ for the U.S. Treasury would be significantly greater still, as even more jobs will likely be offshored and the average annual money income will be slightly higher than $43,000. The amount for the decade ahead would be easily in excess of $300 billion more.
But the total US tax revenue loss is even greater due to the direct loss of jobs from offshoring. The loss of tax revenue due to the loss of 2.9 million jobs (and an equal or greater number of lost jobs due to offshoring in the coming decade) is only part of the tax revenue loss picture attributable to U.S. multinational corporations.
For example, current federal tax laws actually give corporations’ tax breaks for moving jobs offshore. Then there’s the investment tax cuts given corporations that move offshore that partially pay for the cost of the capital equipment they purchase when they set up operations offshore. These two ‘expensing’ and ‘investment tax credit’ loopholes for companies that ‘offshore’ jobs are difficult to estimate precisely, but together likely amount to at least another $150 billion dollars over the past decade, 2000-2009, and even more going forward for 2010-1019.
So we have $250 billion in lost jobs-based tax revenue for the past decade due to offshoring plus another $150 billion or so due to expensing and investment credit loopholes associated with the same offshoring and job loss. That’s a total of $400 billion.
But an even greater revenue loss is the result of these same multinational corporations refusing to pay their required ‘foreign profits tax.’ It has been estimated by the global business periodical, The Financial Times, that as of mid-year 2010 non-financial US multinationals were sheltering $1 trillion in taxable revenue in their offshore foreign subsidiaries. They are holding the $1 trillion offshore, refusing to pay their share of taxes on it.
Adding the preceding tax revenue losses due to multinationals’ offshoring of 2.9 million jobs, manipulation of loopholes, and both financial and non-financial multinational corporations’ refusal to pay taxes on foreign earnings according to US tax law—the total revenue loss to the US government comes to more than $1 trillion.
Another corporate tax reduction?
Having gotten away with an offshore earnings tax reduction scam in 2004, multinational corporations are now once again playing the same lobbying game today in 2011. They are in the process of blackmailing Congress and the Obama administration to reduce the tax rate again on foreign earnings. Should they get their way once again in 2012, when Congress takes up the task of a major overhaul of the entire tax code, it will mean hundreds of billions more beyond the $1 trillion in lost tax revenue every year for another decade to come.
Multinational corporations like General Electric and others argue the reduction in the offshore profits tax is necessary to create jobs—while they simultaneously cut jobs by the millions and intend to continue to do so. They further argue that the US corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world. But the tax rate is only part of the picture. Actual revenues collected are a result of corporate tax loopholes, not just corporate tax rates. The US has among the most tax loopholes of any developed economy in the world.
As a result, corporate taxes in the U.S. represent only 3.2 percent of GDP—one of the lowest ‘tax takes’ in the industrial world.
Today the revenue and budget deficit stakes are even higher than they were during the past decade. All US corporations today, whether doing business offshore or in the U.S., want the corporate tax rate on operations in the US, as well as offshore, reduced to 25% from ithe current 35% rate. That proposal is already embedded in the current U.S. House Republican (Paul Ryan) budget.
The 25 percent rate is also supported by the CEO of General Electric, Jeff Immelt, who heads up President Obama’s special trade council. And GE, it was recently reported, not only paid no corporate taxes in 2010 on its global income of $14.2 billion ($5.1 billion of that earned in the US), but actually got a check from the US Treasury for $3.2 billion in tax subsidy.
The approaching White House capitulation
It appears President Obama has been steadily drifting in the same direction of the 25 percent corporate rate tax cut as well. After having run in 2008 on a platform that assured voters he would enforce the 35 percent on corporate offshore profits, and force multinationals to pay up on their offshore sheltering, in 2010 Obama abandoned the idea of enforcing the foreign profits tax altogether. Now he is moving in the opposite direction to allow even more corporate tax cuts.
In 2012, I believe he will trade the corporate tax cut for a token increase in the personal tax rate on millionaires. The corporate tax cut will be ‘justified’ as necessary to create jobs. General Electric and other multinational CEOs will politely nod their heads and smile (and collect their subsidy checks from the government).
Revenues will fall. The budget deficit will get worse. And GE and other heads of U.S. multinationals will continue to offshore millions more jobs in the years to come—thus providing even more evidence to contradict the myth that business tax cuts create jobs.
Jack Rasmus is the author of Epic Recession and the forthcoming Obama's Economy: Recovery for the Few. His blog is jackrasmus.com.
I pick full context excerpts from the Federalist Papers because that was the chief published advertisement for the Constitution. That was what they claimed the Constitution was all about. Anything besides the Fed Papers or notes from the convention may or may not be relevant. I sure don't give a rat's ass if somebody changed their mind about something.
Just...please, don't invoke "implied powers" or the "founding fathers" with this stuff. They have never been relevant to any of your arguments and have nothing to do with all the budget busting socialist programs that you champion. Socialist programs were deemed unconstitutional until....you guessed it: 1937.
Along with the Interstate Commerce clause, the primary Supreme Court decision that enabled the beginning of the bankruptcy of the Union is:
Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (301 us 548, May 24, 1937)
A decision that was essentially made at gunpoint.
Without this decision, there would be no SSI, Medicare, welfare, department of Education, energy, etc. etc, etc...
So, now when you feel the urge to justify all the FDR and LBJ and Carter and Bush socialist programs that are burying our country, you can feel confident that you are armed with all the correct information as to what makes them constitutional. You can always leave out the part where FDR extorted the Supreme Court.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
lonewolf wrote:I pick full context excerpts from the Federalist Papers because that was the chief published advertisement for the Constitution. That was what they claimed the Constitution was all about. Anything besides the Fed Papers or notes from the convention may or may not be relevant. I sure don't give a rat's ass if somebody changed their mind about something.
Just...please, don't invoke "implied powers" or the "founding fathers" with this stuff. They have never been relevant to any of your arguments and have nothing to do with all the budget busting socialist programs that you champion. Socialist programs were deemed unconstitutional until....you guessed it: 1937.
Along with the Interstate Commerce clause, the primary Supreme Court decision that enabled the beginning of the bankruptcy of the Union is:
Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (301 us 548, May 24, 1937)
A decision that was essentially made at gunpoint.
Without this decision, there would be no SSI, Medicare, welfare, department of Education, energy, etc. etc, etc...
So, now when you feel the urge to justify all the FDR and LBJ and Carter and Bush socialist programs that are burying our country, you can feel confident that you are armed with all the correct information as to what makes them constitutional. You can always leave out the part where FDR extorted the Supreme Court.
So you can quote Madison as supreme authority in the Federalist Papers, but ignore him when he was faced with real world decisions, he abandoned those principals as ones that don't work. Common sense logic ?
lonewolf wrote:I pick full context excerpts from the Federalist Papers because that was the chief published advertisement for the Constitution. That was what they claimed the Constitution was all about. Anything besides the Fed Papers or notes from the convention may or may not be relevant. I sure don't give a rat's ass if somebody changed their mind about something.
Just...please, don't invoke "implied powers" or the "founding fathers" with this stuff. They have never been relevant to any of your arguments and have nothing to do with all the budget busting socialist programs that you champion. Socialist programs were deemed unconstitutional until....you guessed it: 1937.
Along with the Interstate Commerce clause, the primary Supreme Court decision that enabled the beginning of the bankruptcy of the Union is:
Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (301 us 548, May 24, 1937)
A decision that was essentially made at gunpoint.
Without this decision, there would be no SSI, Medicare, welfare, department of Education, energy, etc. etc, etc...
So, now when you feel the urge to justify all the FDR and LBJ and Carter and Bush socialist programs that are burying our country, you can feel confident that you are armed with all the correct information as to what makes them constitutional. You can always leave out the part where FDR extorted the Supreme Court.
So you can quote Madison as supreme authority in the Federalist Papers, but ignore him when he was faced with real world decisions, he abandoned those principals as ones that don't work. Common sense logic ?
Incorrect. I thought Madison did just fine with the Constitution as president. I don't disagree with his actions or his reasoning behind them. The true Implied powers concept is perfectly logical and if Madison became a little less rigid in his beliefs, so be it. Did he sway from the 17 enumerations in the Constitution? Did he encroach on the states?
A resounding NO to both.
My point is: I don't know why you even brought it up. It was completely irrelevant to the conversation.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Madison's idea, certainly not an original one, but unique for the new United States, was to recreate the United States under an entirely different form of government - a republican model. In a republic, the people are the ultimate power, and the people transfer that power to representatives. As in the United States today, the people would elect their representatives to govern. This was in contrast to the Confederation model of the time, when the states appointed members of Congress. His vision included separate authorities with separate responsibilities, allowing no one to control too much of the government; and a dominant national government, curbing the power of the states.
From Madison's thoughts, notes, and work, the delegates from Virginia all met prior to the start of the Convention. They hammered out the details of what became known as the Virginia Plan. Its main features:
•A bicameral legislature (two houses)
•Both house's membership determined proportionately
•The lower house was elected by the people
•The upper house was elected by the lower house
•The legislature was very powerful
•An executive was planned, but would exist to ensure the will of the legislature was carried out, and so was chosen by the legislature
•Formation of a judiciary, with life-terms of service
•The executive and some of the national judiciary would have the power to veto legislation, subject to override
•National veto power over any state legislation
lonewolf wrote:I pick full context excerpts from the Federalist Papers because that was the chief published advertisement for the Constitution. That was what they claimed the Constitution was all about. Anything besides the Fed Papers or notes from the convention may or may not be relevant. I sure don't give a rat's ass if somebody changed their mind about something.
Just...please, don't invoke "implied powers" or the "founding fathers" with this stuff. They have never been relevant to any of your arguments and have nothing to do with all the budget busting socialist programs that you champion. Socialist programs were deemed unconstitutional until....you guessed it: 1937.
Along with the Interstate Commerce clause, the primary Supreme Court decision that enabled the beginning of the bankruptcy of the Union is:
Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (301 us 548, May 24, 1937)
A decision that was essentially made at gunpoint.
Without this decision, there would be no SSI, Medicare, welfare, department of Education, energy, etc. etc, etc...
So, now when you feel the urge to justify all the FDR and LBJ and Carter and Bush socialist programs that are burying our country, you can feel confident that you are armed with all the correct information as to what makes them constitutional. You can always leave out the part where FDR extorted the Supreme Court.
So you can quote Madison as supreme authority in the Federalist Papers, but ignore him when he was faced with real world decisions, he abandoned those principals as ones that don't work. Common sense logic ?
Incorrect. I thought Madison did just fine with the Constitution as president. I don't disagree with his actions or his reasoning behind them. The true Implied powers concept is perfectly logical and if Madison became a little less rigid in his beliefs, so be it. Did he sway from the 17 enumerations in the Constitution? Did he encroach on the states?
A resounding NO to both.
My point is: I don't know why you even brought it up. It was completely irrelevant to the conversation.
Madison said the bank was not constitutional. Was he wrong when he said that ? Or was he wrong when he recreated it ? He can't be right both times.
Madison thought internal improvements were not constitutional. Was he wrong when he said that. Then he supported Henry Clay's internal improvements. Was he wrong when he did that ? He can't be constitutionally right both times.
You brought up the constitution and the federalist papers. I thought you needed to know that in the real world, Jefferson and Madison abandoned what Madison said in the federalist papers. or he abandoned what he meant in the federalist papers, as he was adamantly against the bank on constitutional grounds, until HE needed it. Then he ignored what he originally said. Now you want to spin history? Classic Limbaughism.
As carefully as the words were chosen, ONLY YOU would interpret it as though it "could just as well have been left out". 
Founding Father Alexander Hamilton said, "... it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies." Now where did you hear that argument before ? 
