Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Virgil Goode matters to Mitt Romney's presidential chances
July 14, 2012 | techno

Posted on 07/13/2012 9:00:22 PM PDT by techno

The complete Virgil Goode rundown:

The ten most asked questions about Virgil Goode and why he matters:

1) Who is Virgil Goode?

He is a former GOP Congressman from Virginia who was defeated in the 2010 election. He is now the presidential nominee for the Constitution Party, a third party.

2) How long has the Constitution Party been around?

About 20 years.

3) I hear that Virgil Goode is NOT yet on the Virginia presidential ballot. Will he fail to get on the ballot.

To give you some perspective, in 2004 and 2008 the Constitution Party presidential nominee was on the Virginia presidential ballot. As Goode is a resident of Virginia and a former Congressman, do you really think he would not know the ins and outs of getting on the ballot, which requires him to get 10,000 signatures with at least 400 from each congressional district. As of June 6, 2012 via the Martinsville Bulletin, a local newspaper, Goode had already collected 4000 signatures. And the article concluded that the Constitution Party had as of that date already collected enough signatures to be on the ballot in 17 states.

4) Third party presidential candidates don't normally a cause a ripple through the process. What's different about Virgil Goode?

Let's put it this way, if the presidential election were decided by popular vote, Goode wouldn't matter. But presidential elections are decided in the electoral college.

5)What do you mean Techno?

There are certain states which are called battleground or swing states in which either the Democratic presidential nominee could win but by the same token the GOP presidential nominee could prevail as well. There are ten or so states in the 2012 electoral college which could be considered battleground states based on recent presidential elections and current polling. Virginia is one of those states. And it is not out of the ordinary for the winner of a battleground state to win by a margin of less than 2%.

6) So again why is Goode important to Romney's chances to become president?

Because Goode apparently is far more popular in Virginia than any other state. A Public Policy poll (PPP) in May found that Goode would garner 5% of the vote in Virginia in the presidential election against Obama and Romney. And now a couple of days ago, Goode increased his share of the vote to 9% with Obama collected 49% of the vote and Romney 35%. Without Goode in the mix it would be Obama 50% and Romney 42%. And for those not schooled in the electoral college, the winner of the popular vote in the presidential race in Virgina earns Virginia's 13 electoral votes in 2012. And that now appears to be Obama and not Romney.

7) Are you saying Techno that Goode is taking away way more voters away from Romney than he is Obama?

Exactly, that is what I am saying, But I am NOT the only one saying that. Local Virginia pundits are saying that as well. And PPP in its summary of the poll found that too. If you don't believe me, go over to the PPP web site and read it for yourself.

8)Techno, I'm lazy. I don't want to go over to PPP and read their s*it. Could you give me a brief synopsis?

Alright brother and sister. Under the Obama--Romney--Goode scenario in Virginia here is how the vote breaks down in four demographics: very conservative voters, somewhat conservative voters, Republicans and independents:

----------------------OBAMA--------ROMNEY-----GOODE

VERY CONSERVATIVE-------7-----------84----------7

SOMEWHAT CONSERVATIVE---19----------55----------14

REPUBLICANS-------------9-----------78----------9

INDEPENDENTS------------45----------26----------17

It doesn't take a genius to figure out Goode hurts Romney way more than he hurts Obama.

9) But don't third party bids eventually fizzle out?

Yes, that is the rule of thumb nationally. But in Virginia Goode ahs gained 4% in support since May and he's not even on the Virginia ballot yet. Even if he drops back to his previous level of support of 5% that would still be enough to sink Romney's ship in Virginia in a close contest.

10) Techno, could you explain why Virginia is so important?

It comes down to the number of electoral votes (EV) in the electoral college. The general consensus among the folks who do it for a living is that President Obama currently sits at 247 EV when you include all the safe blue states and those states leaning to Obama (likely to win). If Obama wins VA, a battleground state, that takes him to 260 EV and therefore only needs 10 more EV to hit the 270 EV threshold to win re-election. And here are the four swing states which Obama must win these 10 votes again based on a consensus of experts: Iowa (6), NH(4), Nevada (6) and Colorado (9). Obama is currently enjoying a small margin in the polls in every state but Iowa and is running neck and neck with Romney there.

Of course the dynamic of the race could shift in the next three months or so but it appears Obama has the edge in winning Colorado and its 9 EV. If he did that he would reach 269 EV and would only need to win one of the remaining three states to get a second term.

As for Mitt Romney if he loses Virginia, assuming he wins the other huge 4 swing states of Ohio, NC, Indiana and Florida and reaches 253 EV, Romney would be forced to win Colorado to have any chance of winning the presidency in the electoral college. The best he could hope for otherwise is a tie (269-269) in which case the contest goes to the House of Representatives.

One other element to consider: In 2008 President Obama won 1 EV in Nebraska who allots it EV by whoever wins the congressional district. Obama actually won this district (Omaha) by 9.77% which is a pretty hefty margin. If Obama could again win this district and on top of it win Virginia and Colorado that would take him to 270 EV on the button and Romney would be denied regardless of what he did in Iowa, NH and Nevada.

A final note: If Romney can win Virginia with Ohio, NC, Indiana and Florida he would then be at 266 EV. He would then not be forced to win Colorado but would only have to be victorious in Iowa to become the new president.

And that folks is why Team Obama has had many sleepless nights over the past 3 years. Virgil Goode is a godsend for Obama and his team.


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: goode; obama; palin; presidential; romney; virgilgoode
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-269 next last
To: EternalVigilance
Since the foundations of the Republic we've had a user fee based postal system. The only big change in that system, as a Constitutional process, was when they began demanding payment in advance, rather than on delivery. Too many deadbeats!

Social Security is modeled after the basic outlines of a user fee paid system ~ but what should outrage you is the failure of the system to apply the same fee to all users. It doesn't.

At the time it was felt that only the federal government could run an annuity system of the scale required to provide universal "coverage'. That's not a constitutional argument of course, but a practicality argument. Today numerous private entities, and all the states, run far larger systems than the nascent Social Security system ~ through the magic application of COMPUTERS.

The practicality argument upon which Social Security is based is simply no longer relevant!

The Constitutionality is another issue which could take weeks to cover, but if it is looked at strictly as a utility ~ like sewers, water, 'roads', navigation aids, gub'mnt owned port facilities, etc. ~ it can pass muster. However, we don't need it. Fidelity can and does handle more traffic than the Social Security Administration ~ and so does the state of New York, California, Texas, and probably Illinois!

Unlike private sector annuities, there's no inheritance option. When you die Social Security doesn't hand over any surplus unspent to your heirs ~ unless they are themselves disabled, or a widow, they are just out of luck!

The fact that unspent fees are not expended on the payee is a Constitutional failing. If USPS did that ~ cut off delivering your mail just because you dropped dead in the lobby, we'd all agree they were nuts, but this happens every day in Social Security and no one seems to care.

201 posted on 07/14/2012 2:52:58 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

The discussion included talk of declaring social security unconstitutional. I doubt that would be possible, and the Hamilton understanding of the general welfare is Founder era acceptance of a broader definition of “general”.

It’s broad.

And since the SSN tax is not levied on just a few, but on all, and it’s based on income, something the people are doing (producing income), then it would never be, in my opinion, declared unconstitutional.

I don’t know who your candidate is..Romney, Goode, Palin, whoever...but what do you think would happen to their chances if they announced that social security is unconstitutional and they intend to end it?

My sense is that at a minimum they could say only that its constitutionality is contested by some people.


202 posted on 07/14/2012 2:54:27 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

How do you intend to “toss this to the House”?

Nobody, alone, has that power, -— and there is no strategy any group of people could take to guarantee that outcome.


203 posted on 07/14/2012 2:56:58 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Interesting points.


204 posted on 07/14/2012 2:59:37 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (If you've surrendered your principles out of fear of Obama, Obama has already won. TomHoefling.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The discussion included talk of declaring social security unconstitutional. I doubt that would be possible, and the Hamilton understanding of the general welfare is Founder era acceptance of a broader definition of “general”.

An understanding completely refuted by Madison, and Jefferson, and Marshall, to name but a few.

It’s broad.

According to you, and the NEA, and the New Deal Democrats.

And since the SSN tax is not levied on just a few, but on all, and it’s based on income, something the people are doing (producing income), then it would never be, in my opinion, declared unconstitutional.

"Declared" by whom?

I don’t know who your candidate is..Romney, Goode, Palin, whoever...but what do you think would happen to their chances if they announced that social security is unconstitutional and they intend to end it?

Ah, now there's the rub, isn't it. In fact, it isn't constitutionality that is driving this constant move towards unlimited government, it's politics.

My sense is that at a minimum they could say only that its constitutionality is contested by some people.

That sort of namby-pamby, mealy-mouthed lack of leadership is how we got to where we are.

205 posted on 07/14/2012 3:07:30 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (If you've surrendered your principles out of fear of Obama, Obama has already won. TomHoefling.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Yes, there was a “Taliban” during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

That area of the world has always been tribal, it is very difficult to form lasting groups or bonds with all of the tribes, simultaneously.

However, there is absolutely no doubt that many who received U.S. Aid, against the Soviets, later turned against the United States.


206 posted on 07/14/2012 3:10:25 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Yes, there was a “Taliban” during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

That area of the world has always been tribal, it is very difficult to form lasting groups or bonds with all of the tribes, simultaneously.

However, there is absolutely no doubt that many who received U.S. Aid, against the Soviets, later turned against the United States.


207 posted on 07/14/2012 3:10:35 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

I figure Goode is ultimately worth about 40% or more ~ Virginia being special and all.


208 posted on 07/14/2012 3:11:02 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"The origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact, between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man or set of men have, to govern others, except their own consent?

To usurp dominion over a people, in their own despite, or to grasp at a more extensive power than they are willing to entrust, is to violate that law of nature, which gives every man a right to his personal liberty; and can, therefore, confer no obligation to obedience. "

-- Alexander Hamilton


209 posted on 07/14/2012 3:14:47 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (If you've surrendered your principles out of fear of Obama, Obama has already won. TomHoefling.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
your side will need to stop thinking of yourselves as Conservatives though ~ because you aren’t.

Try again, buddy-boy. There are numerous conservatives whom you and I would have gladly voted for who have since given their support to this romney idiot. Suddenly they aren't conservative either, just because they don't share your pretend pride? Sarah Palin flushes things more conservative than you are.

210 posted on 07/14/2012 3:16:02 PM PDT by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; Yashcheritsiy; P-Marlowe
refuted

Difference; not refutation.

Besides, it is illogical to cite the enumerated powers of Section 8, when the general welfare IS ALREADY one of the enumerated powers in Section 8.

According to you It is broad because of the definition of the word "general", a point that was not lost on Hamilton.

declared..by whom By you, apparently.

the rub It would be silly to declare something unconstitutional that has been declared constitutional and is a part of the fabric of the culture.

mealy-mouthed Speaking facts is mealy-mouthed?

Answer me this, EV: How much cash does your campaign for the presidency have on hand. Since this is a required reporting, I doubt you'd have any problem giving the amount.

211 posted on 07/14/2012 3:19:49 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: gorush

“Our culture has degraded to the point where there is NO chance of saving the America that you refer to.”

I’m sorry you’ve given up hope for America. For those of us who haven’t, we will try to get Romney elected and then attempt to keep his feet to the fire. Impossible? Maybe,... but at least we can say we tried.


212 posted on 07/14/2012 3:38:36 PM PDT by Ronald_Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Answer me this, EV: How much cash does your campaign for the presidency have on hand. Since this is a required reporting, I doubt you'd have any problem giving the amount.

No problem.

I don't want your money

213 posted on 07/14/2012 3:50:05 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (If you've surrendered your principles out of fear of Obama, Obama has already won. TomHoefling.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"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."

-- James Madison, Federalist #41


Can you give me a link to Hamilton's thorough refutation of Madison's words in #41?

Can you also provide some evidence that the view you attribute to Hamilton, through the deployment of one obscure quote, was shared by any of the other framers of our Constitution?

214 posted on 07/14/2012 3:57:21 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (If you've surrendered your principles out of fear of Obama, Obama has already won. TomHoefling.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy; xzins
The Federalist No. 41
General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution

Independent Journal
Saturday, January 19, 1788
[James Madison]

To the People of the State of New York:

THE Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered under two general points of view. The FIRST relates to the sum or quantity of power which it vests in the government, including the restraints imposed on the States. The SECOND, to the particular structure of the government, and the distribution of this power among its several branches.

Under the first view of the subject, two important questions arise: 1. Whether any part of the powers transferred to the general government be unnecessary or improper? 2. Whether the entire mass of them be dangerous to the portion of jurisdiction left in the several States?

Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it? This is the first question.

It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.

That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.

The powers falling within the first class are those of declaring war and granting letters of marque; of providing armies and fleets; of regulating and calling forth the militia; of levying and borrowing money.

Security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed and essential object of the American Union. The powers requisite for attaining it must be effectually confided to the federal councils.

Is the power of declaring war necessary? No man will answer this question in the negative. It would be superfluous, therefore, to enter into a proof of the affirmative. The existing Confederation establishes this power in the most ample form.

Is the power of raising armies and equipping fleets necessary? This is involved in the foregoing power. It is involved in the power of self-defense.

But was it necessary to give an INDEFINITE POWER of raising TROOPS, as well as providing fleets; and of maintaining both in PEACE, as well as in WAR?

The answer to these questions has been too far anticipated in another place to admit an extensive discussion of them in this place. The answer indeed seems to be so obvious and conclusive as scarcely to justify such a discussion in any place. With what color of propriety could the force necessary for defense be limited by those who cannot limit the force of offense? If a federal Constitution could chain the ambition or set bounds to the exertions of all other nations, then indeed might it prudently chain the discretion of its own government, and set bounds to the exertions for its own safety.

How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation? The means of security can only be regulated by the means and the danger of attack. They will, in fact, be ever determined by these rules, and by no others. It is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation. It is worse than in vain; because it plants in the Constitution itself necessary usurpations of power, every precedent of which is a germ of unnecessary and multiplied repetitions. If one nation maintains constantly a disciplined army, ready for the service of ambition or revenge, it obliges the most pacific nations who may be within the reach of its enterprises to take corresponding precautions. The fifteenth century was the unhappy epoch of military establishments in the time of peace. They were introduced by Charles VII. of France. All Europe has followed, or been forced into, the example. Had the example not been followed by other nations, all Europe must long ago have worn the chains of a universal monarch. Were every nation except France now to disband its peace establishments, the same event might follow. The veteran legions of Rome were an overmatch for the undisciplined valor of all other nations and rendered her the mistress of the world.

Not the less true is it, that the liberties of Rome proved the final victim to her military triumphs; and that the liberties of Europe, as far as they ever existed, have, with few exceptions, been the price of her military establishments. A standing force, therefore, is a dangerous, at the same time that it may be a necessary, provision. On the smallest scale it has its inconveniences. On an extensive scale its consequences may be fatal. On any scale it is an object of laudable circumspection and precaution. A wise nation will combine all these considerations; and, whilst it does not rashly preclude itself from any resource which may become essential to its safety, will exert all its prudence in diminishing both the necessity and the danger of resorting to one which may be inauspicious to its liberties.

The clearest marks of this prudence are stamped on the proposed Constitution. The Union itself, which it cements and secures, destroys every pretext for a military establishment which could be dangerous. America united, with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat. It was remarked, on a former occasion, that the want of this pretext had saved the liberties of one nation in Europe. Being rendered by her insular situation and her maritime resources impregnable to the armies of her neighbors, the rulers of Great Britain have never been able, by real or artificial dangers, to cheat the public into an extensive peace establishment. The distance of the United States from the powerful nations of the world gives them the same happy security. A dangerous establishment can never be necessary or plausible, so long as they continue a united people. But let it never, for a moment, be forgotten that they are indebted for this advantage to the Union alone. The moment of its dissolution will be the date of a new order of things. The fears of the weaker, or the ambition of the stronger States, or Confederacies, will set the same example in the New, as Charles VII. did in the Old World. The example will be followed here from the same motives which produced universal imitation there. Instead of deriving from our situation the precious advantage which Great Britain has derived from hers, the face of America will be but a copy of that of the continent of Europe. It will present liberty everywhere crushed between standing armies and perpetual taxes. The fortunes of disunited America will be even more disastrous than those of Europe. The sources of evil in the latter are confined to her own limits. No superior powers of another quarter of the globe intrigue among her rival nations, inflame their mutual animosities, and render them the instruments of foreign ambition, jealousy, and revenge. In America the miseries springing from her internal jealousies, contentions, and wars, would form a part only of her lot. A plentiful addition of evils would have their source in that relation in which Europe stands to this quarter of the earth, and which no other quarter of the earth bears to Europe.

This picture of the consequences of disunion cannot be too highly colored, or too often exhibited. Every man who loves peace, every man who loves his country, every man who loves liberty, ought to have it ever before his eyes, that he may cherish in his heart a due attachment to the Union of America, and be able to set a due value on the means of preserving it.

Next to the effectual establishment of the Union, the best possible precaution against danger from standing armies is a limitation of the term for which revenue may be appropriated to their support. This precaution the Constitution has prudently added. I will not repeat here the observations which I flatter myself have placed this subject in a just and satisfactory light. But it may not be improper to take notice of an argument against this part of the Constitution, which has been drawn from the policy and practice of Great Britain. It is said that the continuance of an army in that kingdom requires an annual vote of the legislature; whereas the American Constitution has lengthened this critical period to two years. This is the form in which the comparison is usually stated to the public: but is it a just form? Is it a fair comparison? Does the British Constitution restrain the parliamentary discretion to one year? Does the American impose on the Congress appropriations for two years? On the contrary, it cannot be unknown to the authors of the fallacy themselves, that the British Constitution fixes no limit whatever to the discretion of the legislature, and that the American ties down the legislature to two years, as the longest admissible term.

Had the argument from the British example been truly stated, it would have stood thus: The term for which supplies may be appropriated to the army establishment, though unlimited by the British Constitution, has nevertheless, in practice, been limited by parliamentary discretion to a single year. Now, if in Great Britain, where the House of Commons is elected for seven years; where so great a proportion of the members are elected by so small a proportion of the people; where the electors are so corrupted by the representatives, and the representatives so corrupted by the Crown, the representative body can possess a power to make appropriations to the army for an indefinite term, without desiring, or without daring, to extend the term beyond a single year, ought not suspicion herself to blush, in pretending that the representatives of the United States, elected FREELY by the WHOLE BODY of the people, every SECOND YEAR, cannot be safely intrusted with the discretion over such appropriations, expressly limited to the short period of TWO YEARS?

A bad cause seldom fails to betray itself. Of this truth, the management of the opposition to the federal government is an unvaried exemplification. But among all the blunders which have been committed, none is more striking than the attempt to enlist on that side the prudent jealousy entertained by the people, of standing armies. The attempt has awakened fully the public attention to that important subject; and has led to investigations which must terminate in a thorough and universal conviction, not only that the constitution has provided the most effectual guards against danger from that quarter, but that nothing short of a Constitution fully adequate to the national defense and the preservation of the Union, can save America from as many standing armies as it may be split into States or Confederacies, and from such a progressive augmentation, of these establishments in each, as will render them as burdensome to the properties and ominous to the liberties of the people, as any establishment that can become necessary, under a united and efficient government, must be tolerable to the former and safe to the latter.

The palpable necessity of the power to provide and maintain a navy has protected that part of the Constitution against a spirit of censure, which has spared few other parts. It must, indeed, be numbered among the greatest blessings of America, that as her Union will be the only source of her maritime strength, so this will be a principal source of her security against danger from abroad. In this respect our situation bears another likeness to the insular advantage of Great Britain. The batteries most capable of repelling foreign enterprises on our safety, are happily such as can never be turned by a perfidious government against our liberties.

The inhabitants of the Atlantic frontier are all of them deeply interested in this provision for naval protection, and if they have hitherto been suffered to sleep quietly in their beds; if their property has remained safe against the predatory spirit of licentious adventurers; if their maritime towns have not yet been compelled to ransom themselves from the terrors of a conflagration, by yielding to the exactions of daring and sudden invaders, these instances of good fortune are not to be ascribed to the capacity of the existing government for the protection of those from whom it claims allegiance, but to causes that are fugitive and fallacious. If we except perhaps Virginia and Maryland, which are peculiarly vulnerable on their eastern frontiers, no part of the Union ought to feel more anxiety on this subject than New York. Her seacoast is extensive. A very important district of the State is an island. The State itself is penetrated by a large navigable river for more than fifty leagues. The great emporium of its commerce, the great reservoir of its wealth, lies every moment at the mercy of events, and may almost be regarded as a hostage for ignominious compliances with the dictates of a foreign enemy, or even with the rapacious demands of pirates and barbarians. Should a war be the result of the precarious situation of European affairs, and all the unruly passions attending it be let loose on the ocean, our escape from insults and depredations, not only on that element, but every part of the other bordering on it, will be truly miraculous. In the present condition of America, the States more immediately exposed to these calamities have nothing to hope from the phantom of a general government which now exists; and if their single resources were equal to the task of fortifying themselves against the danger, the object to be protected would be almost consumed by the means of protecting them. The power of regulating and calling forth the militia has been already sufficiently vindicated and explained.

The power of levying and borrowing money, being the sinew of that which is to be exerted in the national defense, is properly thrown into the same class with it. This power, also, has been examined already with much attention, and has, I trust, been clearly shown to be necessary, both in the extent and form given to it by the Constitution. I will address one additional reflection only to those who contend that the power ought to have been restrained to external -- taxation by which they mean, taxes on articles imported from other countries. It cannot be doubted that this will always be a valuable source of revenue; that for a considerable time it must be a principal source; that at this moment it is an essential one. But we may form very mistaken ideas on this subject, if we do not call to mind in our calculations, that the extent of revenue drawn from foreign commerce must vary with the variations, both in the extent and the kind of imports; and that these variations do not correspond with the progress of population, which must be the general measure of the public wants. As long as agriculture continues the sole field of labor, the importation of manufactures must increase as the consumers multiply. As soon as domestic manufactures are begun by the hands not called for by agriculture, the imported manufactures will decrease as the numbers of people increase. In a more remote stage, the imports may consist in a considerable part of raw materials, which will be wrought into articles for exportation, and will, therefore, require rather the encouragement of bounties, than to be loaded with discouraging duties. A system of government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them.

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.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

PUBLIUS

215 posted on 07/14/2012 4:21:55 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (If you've surrendered your principles out of fear of Obama, Obama has already won. TomHoefling.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Does that mean that your campaign has little to no cash for campaigning?


216 posted on 07/14/2012 4:35:07 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: xzins

It means exactly what it says.

Did you read it?


217 posted on 07/14/2012 4:56:30 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (If you've surrendered your principles out of fear of Obama, Obama has already won. TomHoefling.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"I don't want your money. I want you to do your duty as a citizen." -- Tom Hoefling
This campaign does NOT accept financial contributions. I know this is hard to believe, but it's true.

For too long now, we've had government of the elites, by the media, and for the money, instead of government of the people, by the people, for the people. This cannot continue, if we are to remain a free, self-governing people.

All of our work at the national level is being done on a strictly volunteer basis. And yet, we intend to win. How? By fostering a million or more Front Porch Campaigns to Save America, using the free or extremely inexpensive methods for effective grassroots politics that we have been developing.

Use your own money where 100% of those resources have the maximum impact, with no waste, instead of giving it to fundraisers, political consultants, ad agencies, media gurus, pollsters and media conglomerates. Focus whatever resources you might have donated to this effort to win back your own neighborhood, your own precinct, your own community, and your own state.

We intend to change America's political culture, by example. But we can only do that with your commitment, and your help.

Get on board. We need you to help us take back our country and secure the Blessings of Liberty to our Posterity.

Thank you!

For Life, Liberty, and the Constitution,

Tom Hoefling

Support Tom

President William McKinley, who won the presidency from his own front porch.

Picture
Picture

 

218 posted on 07/14/2012 5:11:40 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (If you've surrendered your principles out of fear of Obama, Obama has already won. TomHoefling.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Our Founders won our independence using hand-written letters, delivered via horseback.

A number of U.S. Presidents won election without expending any money or ever stepping foot off their front porch. In fact, that was once the normal thing to do.

If they could do that, why can't we, especially in consideration of the fact that we have computers, and the internet, and cell phones, and free email, and free websites, and free social media, and free web radio, and free web video, and free conferencing calling, etc.?

Our problem is not an inability to get our message out. Our problem is that millions of folks who should be helping us are still too busy chasing Republican false flags, buying into the corrupt politics that is solely owned and operated by the money and media interests.

219 posted on 07/14/2012 5:19:03 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (If you've surrendered your principles out of fear of Obama, Obama has already won. TomHoefling.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: xzins

220 posted on 07/14/2012 5:23:05 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (If you've surrendered your principles out of fear of Obama, Obama has already won. TomHoefling.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“The Mittbots played to win the game by hook or crook and didn’t have any gameplan for what happens next”

The game has never been to win. Why take the chance of losing when you can guarantee a win.


221 posted on 07/14/2012 5:29:04 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Blah, blah, blah...random Obama flunky speak...


222 posted on 07/14/2012 5:52:00 PM PDT by MissouriConservative (Voting Anyone but Obama in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Hegewisch Dupa

“nice that you finally admit there are only two candidates -”

Actually I didn’t. What I said is that his question had only two possible answers.

And since I’ve never joined the discussion of how many candidates there are I couldn’t “finally admit” anything.


223 posted on 07/14/2012 5:58:45 PM PDT by Pelham (John Roberts: the cherry on top of judicial tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
horseback

I take that to mean you don't have a lot of campaign cash.

It's OK, EV. You've always been a polite freeper to me. I think a freeper hanging out a shingle that he's running for president and admitting that he has little cash on hand is very honest and upfront with folks about what his chances are.

224 posted on 07/14/2012 6:16:27 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
a set containing only two members"

I agree; it was bad of me to expect basic language skills out of you

225 posted on 07/14/2012 6:25:23 PM PDT by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: xzins

You’re missing the point.

If we wanted cash we know how to get it. We could have easily raised millions in the last four years. There were plenty of serious offers on the table to do exactly that.

But we have intentionally turned away from that way of doing politics, in the belief that this is the only way we will in fact return to government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

http://www.tomhoefling.com/tom-hoefling-i-dont-want-your-money.html

http://www.selfgovernment.us/no-donations.html


226 posted on 07/14/2012 7:06:21 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (If you've surrendered your principles out of fear of Obama, you've already lost. - TomHoefling.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: skeama

Thank you for the kind words my FRiend. History has proven over and over again that Tyranny thrives on instability and chaos. Moreover, the people causing the chaos and instability end up being the Tyrants because they stabilize the situation by force. We have only seen a small portion of what Zero and the RATS have planned for us. Mittens isn’t as “principled” as we would like but I don’t think he is evil either. We will see real evil if Zero gets a second term.


227 posted on 07/14/2012 9:50:36 PM PDT by wjcsux ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy

“Nevertheless, my point still stands - anyone who doesn’t want to touch 18.74% of the budget, especially when much of that amounts to spending on wars we shouldn’t even be in and on bases in places we don’t need to be anymore, simply is not serious about balancing the budget or reducing spending.”

Sure, after all the unconstitutional spending is taken out.


228 posted on 07/14/2012 10:56:27 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“And since the SSN tax is not levied on just a few, but on all, and it’s based on income, something the people are doing (producing income), then it would never be, in my opinion, declared unconstitutional”

It robs young americans of their earnings, and redistributes it to older americans. There is no actual ‘benevolence’ involved anymore. 1945 was 50 years ago in 2000, meaning that everyone who collects now paid into it their entire working lives.


229 posted on 07/14/2012 11:01:50 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative

Hey punk, you talking to my friend?


230 posted on 07/14/2012 11:03:30 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: xzins; All

Source: Steven T. Voigt (attorney in Pennsylvania), “THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE: AN EXPLORATION OF ORIGINAL INTENT AND CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS PERTAINING TO THE RAPIDLY EXPANDING FEDERAL BUDGET”, Creighton Law Review, February, 2010, pp. 543-562 — 43 Creighton L. Rev. 543

The United States Constitution created a federal government with limited, enumerated powers and powers implicitly necessary to those specifically enumerated. In the founding era, the President, Congress, the courts, and the states scrutinized the taxing and spending of Congress against the proper scope of authority granted by the Constitution. In the founding era, and indeed in any other age of our republic, the modern day’s bloated budget would have been thrown out of Congress by the very body of Congressmen assembled. The budget would have been rejected by the watchful gaze of a judiciary standing guard over the Constitution. The states would have opposed it. Our President would have vetoed it. The checks and balances of our nation would have worked. May we begin to remember, before it is too late, the warnings from our past - by the founding fathers, by early leaders, and by the courts that studied the intent behind the Constitution’s provisions - that the federal government is indeed limited in its authority.

If today’s federal government actually tried to justify the federal budget under the Constitution, the argument could not be based on the enumerated powers of the Constitution because the scope of federal spending reaches far beyond those enumerated powers. The argument would likely be based, in part, on a misapplication of the General Welfare Clause of Section 8 of Article I. The pertinent portion of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution states, “The Congress shall have 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 ... .” n3 Perhaps today’s bureaucrat would protest, “This provision of the Constitution includes the specific words, ‘general welfare.’ That must mean we can spend money on all the local [p. 544] pork projects that we want, as long as we say the projects are good for the people. The Representative down the hall tacks on his project to a bill and I will add mine. Enough taxpayer money exists to spread around to every pet project in Congress. We can, and in 2009 we did, allocate money for fourteen local bike path and trail projects, a museum of natural history, a tattoo removal program, a water taxi service for a beach, and much, much more - 10,160 pork projects costing taxpayers $ 19.6 billion, actually.” n4

Simply put, the bureaucrats of the beltway are wrong. The General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power to Congress. It is not a grant of authority for Congress to pass social legislation. It is not a special grant to spend money on anything. Instead, the General Welfare Clause places restrictions on the reasons for which taxes are levied and restrictions on how those taxes are designated.

Unfortunately, modern-era courts have taken the position that all of Congress’s spending is presumed constitutional. The courts have created a burden of near impossibility for proving that a power is not within the scope of the federal reach under the Constitution. As the United States District Court for the Western District Court of New York held in 1939, “What makes for general welfare is necessarily in the first instance a matter of legislative judgment” and “Congress has declared the purpose to be a public use, by implication if not by express words ... . Its decision is entitled to deference until it is shown to involve an impossibility.” n5

This judicial presumption of expanded federal power is inconsistent with the founding fathers’ intentions. Instead, the burden properly belongs with lawmakers in Washington D.C. to prove to the American people why and how the government is constitutionally authorized to spend the money that hard-working, tax-paying citizens have earned. This judicial presumption in favor of expanded federal power also seems no longer justified in an age when massive spending bills are preceded by no analysis or consideration on the part of legislators for the proper constitutional limits of federal spending. In the current debate over a proposed national health care plan, for instance, almost none of the discussion and debate centers on whether the federal government is permitted to manage, provide for, and even require citizens to obtain health care or whether the reform proposals properly belong, if anywhere, before the general assemblies of the states.

[p. 545]

This Article explores the founding fathers’ intent for the General Welfare Clause, judicial application of the clause, and the federal government’s divergence from original intent. The General Welfare Clause, which is one of the modern-era justifications for federal excess, was never intended as a broad grant of authority. The original intent for the clause is a pole apart from the manner in which the clause is used today, which is as a justification for unlimited taxing and spending.

A. THE FOUNDING FATHERS’ EXPRESSED INTENT REGARDING THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE

The founding fathers agreed that the General Welfare Clause is a limitation on the preceding taxation clause and not its own independent grant of power. In the first draft of the Constitution, the provision related to taxation read, “The legislature of the United States shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.” n6 The clause related to general welfare was not present. If this additional clause is not a limitation on the taxing provision and instead is its own grant of power, then the preceding taxing provision is left meaningless. Thomas Jefferson stated, “To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of the power completely useless.” n7 Jefferson wrote that the consequence of such an unintended meaning would carry with it great peril, stating that this misinterpretation “would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would also be a power to do whatever evil they pleased.” n8

Nonetheless, even understood as a limitation on the taxing power, differences existed about the breadth of this limitation. Both prior to the ratification of the Constitution and afterward, n9 James Madison stated that the purpose of the General Welfare Clause is to limit [p. 546] spending to only the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. “To understand” the General Welfare Clause “in any sense,” James Madison explained to Congress in 1791, and not “limited and explained by the particular enumeration subjoined,” would “give to Congress an unlimited power.” n10 If Congress could tax and spend for whatever purpose it desired, Madison argued, this “would render nugatory the enumeration of particular powers” and it “would supercede all the powers reserved to the state governments ... .” n11 Again in 1830, in a letter to Andrew Stevenson, Madison penned that the framers never “understood [the General Welfare Clause to] invest Congress with powers not otherwise bestowed by the constitutional charter.” n12

On January 19, 1788, prior to ratification of the Constitution, Madison authored The Federalist No. 41 to advocate for ratification. In The Federalist No. 41, Madison stated that the General Welfare Clause refers only to other enumerated powers. He wrote, in part:

“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.” n13

The final version of the clause - “to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States” - states that Congress may provide for the general welfare of the United States. The words “the people of” do not appear in the clause. The clause does not read “general welfare of the people of the United States.” Certainly, this omission provides support for Madison’s intent that the clause restrict spending to other enumerated powers held by the United States.

[p. 547]

Others, however, such as Justice Joseph Story, Supreme Court of the United States Justice from 1811 to 1845, viewed the General Welfare Clause differently than Madison and Jefferson. Story argued that the clause is a prohibition on spending that is not national in scope. In A Familiar Exposition of The Constitution of The United States, Story wrote that the clause requires that “the taxes ... cannot be levied solely for foreign purposes, or in aid of foreign nations, or for purposes not national in their objects or character.” n14

Story’s opinion closely tracked Alexander Hamilton’s view of the General Welfare Clause that Hamilton expressed after ratification of the Constitution. Madison wrote The Federalist No. 41, of course, with the knowledge and assent of Hamilton and John Jay, the authors of other Federalist Papers. In Hamilton’s Report on Manufacturers, published on December 5, 1791, Hamilton wrote that the term “general welfare” extended to a “vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.” n15

The federal judiciary has adopted the more expansive interpretation of the General Welfare Clause articulated by Hamilton and Story. But perhaps the judiciary erred in selecting Hamilton and Story over Madison and Jefferson. A maxim in legal interpretation of ambiguous language is that “the intention of the parties” at the time of drafting is generally controlling, as opposed to the “interpretation of those who subsequently read it.” n16 Justice Story was only a child when the ratification debates were held, and he wrote A Familiar Exposition decades later. Hamilton drafted his Report on Manufacturers only after the first thirteen states ratified the Constitution. As the dissent in a 1938 United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit opinion stated:

“So far as we are informed Madison is the only witness whose testimony prior to the adoption is preserved, in relation to the Convention’s intention with respect to the general welfare clause. Certainly there is none other more worthy of belief, and it enjoys the distinction of having been approved by both Hamilton and Jay and questioned by no one, prior to the adoption, except those who were fearful of subsequent legal construction to the contrary.” n17

[p. 548]

Consider also that the federal judiciary’s approach is incongruent with the Tenth Amendment, a pillar of law near-forgotten in modern-era jurisprudence, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” n18 The Tenth Amendment is consistent with the oft-repeated judicial rule that the federal government is “a limited government of enumerated powers,” which is a statement found at the opening of many case opinions just before those same courts proceed to issue opinions entirely at odds with this bedrock statement. n19 The Tenth Amendment, indeed, is not only consistent with Madison’s view of the General Welfare Clause, but it contradicts Hamilton’s statements in his Report on Manufacturers. As the Supreme Court of the United States stated in Kansas v. Colorado, n20 the Tenth Amendment:

“Disclosed the widespread fear that the national government might, under the pressure of supposed general welfare, attempt to exercise powers which had not been granted. With equal determination the framers intended that no such assumption should ever find justification in the organic act, and that if, in the future, further powers seemed necessary, they should be granted by the people in the manner they had provided for amending that act.” n21

Nonetheless, similarities exist between Madison’s intent and Hamilton and Story’s post-ratification view. The post-ratification Hamilton and Story view and the pre-ratification Madison view both place limitations on the government. In Madison’s perspective, the federal government is limited to spending on only enumerated powers. In Hamilton and Story’s view, taxes cannot be levied and apportionments cannot be made for local or state projects or for purposes that encroach upon the powers reserved to the states.

[p. 549]

Under neither view is the General Welfare Clause an independent grant of power. Story wrote that if the General Welfare Clause were its own grant of power, “then it is obvious, that the powers of the National Government, under color of the authority of the clause to provide for the common defence and general welfare, would be practically unlimited.” n22 To the contrary, viewing the General Welfare Clause as a limitation on taxing and apportionments is “the more just and solid interpretation of the words, and most comfortable to the true spirit and objects of the instrument.” n23 Under both views, much of the current federal spending, and in particular, nearly all pork barrel spending, is unconstitutional.

B. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS’ INTENT FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE

Beyond the writings of our founding fathers directly discussing the General Welfare Clause, additional insight about its intended meaning comes from the actions of our early leaders and from the framers’ intent for the reach of the federal government. In the early years of the republic, for example, leaders actually attempted to make appropriation decisions based on what they were permitted to do under the Constitution.

On December 2, 1806, in his Sixth Annual Message to Congress, President Jefferson suggested that a federal surplus be applied to “the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers” but “an amendment to the constitution” would be necessary for this “because the objects now recommended are not among those enumerated in the constitution ... .” n24

In vetoing an internal improvements bill in 1817, President Madison wrote that “the terms ‘common defence and general welfare’” do not give “to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them.” n25

In 1822, President Monroe vetoed an act allocating spending for “the Preservation and Repair” of a local road (”the Cumberland [p. 550] Road”). n26 In connection with his veto, Monroe wrote an explanation for the House of Representatives:

“Have Congress a right to raise and appropriate the money to any and to every purpose according to their will and pleasure? They certainly have not. The United States government is a limited government, instituted for great national purposes, and for those only. Other interests are committed to the States, whose duty it is to provide for them. Each government should look to the great and essential purposes for which it was instituted and confine itself to these purposes.” n27

Finally, in 1859, President James Buchanan, in vetoing an agricultural college land grant, wrote in a message to Congress that “the natural intendment” of the framers “would be that as the Constitution confined Congress to well-defined specific powers, the funds placed at their command, whether in land or money, should be appropriated to the performance of the duties corresponding with these powers.” n28

Madison, Hamilton, and indeed all of the federalist framers intended that the federal government be a limited body with limited authority and a restricted reach. In An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, which Noah Webster authored in October of 1787 to advocate ratification of the Constitution, Webster wrote:

“The constitution defines the powers of Congress; and every power not expressly delegated to that body, remains in the several state-legislatures. The sovereignty and the republican form of government of each state is guaranteed by the constitution; and the bounds of jurisdiction between the federal and respective state governments, are marked with precision.” n29

In The Federalist No. 45, Madison wrote that the federal government’s powers under the Constitution would be narrowly tailored to mostly external affairs:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. [p. 551] The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” n30

In his speech before the Pennsylvania ratifying Convention, James Wilson stated:

“The states should resign, to the national government, that part, and that part only, of their political liberty, which placed in that government will produce more good to the whole than if it had remained in the several states. While they resign this part of their political liberty, they retain the free and generous exercise of all their other faculties as states ...”. n31

As the federalists who supported ratification advocated a limited Constitution, the anti-federalists who opposed ratification were even more fearful of unrestrained federal power. During the New York Ratifying Convention, Melancton Smith argued, “The state constitutions should be the guardians of our domestic rights and interests; and should be both the support and check of the federal government.” n32 In a speech before the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry argued, “Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is as radical, if in this transition our rights and privileges are endangered and the sovereignty of the States be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see, that this is actually the case?” n33 George Mason wrote:

“Under their own Construction of the general Clause at the end of the enumerated powers the Congress may ... extend their Power as far as they shall think proper; so that the [p. 552] State Legislatures have no Security for the Powers now presumed to remain to them; or the People for their Rights.” n34

With both federalists and anti-federalists opposed to expansive federal power, construing the General Welfare Clause not as a limitation on power but as a grant of additional power certainly cannot be said to be consistent with the framers’ intent.

As the federal government has only limited authority, America’s founding fathers considered that federal spending would likewise be limited. They understood the domain of the federal government as national defense, foreign affairs, and matters truly national in scope. The founding fathers could not conceive that such limited scope of responsibility would create any need for enormous budgets and spending into perpetual debt. Certainly, one of the significant concerns of America’s early leaders was retiring the debt from the Revolutionary War. Once that debt was gone, it was next to unimaginable that, barring another major war or a calamity, America would ever carry a significant debt again. Consider the words of Alexander Hamilton, who wrote in his Report on Manufacturers, published on December 5, 1791, that:

“And as the vicissitudes of Nations beget a perpetual tendency to the accumulation of debt, there ought to be in every government a perpetual, anxious and unceasing effort to reduce that, which at any time exists, as fast as shall be practicable consistently with integrity and good faith.” n35

In a separate document, Hamilton wrote of the importance of organizing any federal debt for its “speedy extinguishment,” stating also, “some gentlemen seem to forget that the faculties of every Country are limited. They talk as if the Government could extend its revenue ad libitum to pay off the debt.” n36 Thomas Jefferson similarly opposed borrowing in excess, stating, “the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” n37

James Madison, an ardent opponent of federal excess and debt, wrote in the National Gazette:

[p. 553]

“The Union: Who Are Its Real Friends?

“Not those who promote unnecessary accumulations of the debt of the Union, instead of the best means of discharging it as fast as possible; thereby encreasing the causes of corruption in the government, and the pretexts for new taxes under its authority, the former undermining the confidence, the latter alienating the affection of the people.

“Not those who study, by arbitrary interpretations and insidious precedents, to pervert the limited government of the Union, into a government of unlimited discretion, contrary to the will and subversive of the authority of the people.” n38

When was the last time the budget debate in Congress and the White House was accompanied by a genuine inquiry into where Congress and the President are constitutionally permitted to allocate spending and whether the spending would be consistent with the Constitution and intent of the founding fathers? And where are the courts in all of this? Perhaps a critic could argue that a Representative in Congress may have some difficulty turning away pork barrel spending that would benefit that Representative’s district. However, the people should at least be able to depend on the judiciary as a neutral arbiter to stand up to the unconstitutional excesses of Congress. The people should also be able to depend on a President who will veto any bill laden with the slightest morsel of pork or that over-reaches the Constitution by even a mote.

C. THE EARLY JUDICIARY’S DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE SCOPE OF FEDERAL POWER

While some of the judiciary’s decision-making regarding the General Welfare Clause has been questionable, such as the judiciary’s reliance on Hamilton’s post-ratification statements rather than Madison’s pre-ratification intent, in other circumstances, the courts have properly cautioned against unconstitutionally expanding the reach of lawmakers in Washington D.C., consistent with the intent of the founding fathers. For instance, in McCulloch v. Maryland, n39 the Supreme Court of the United States recognized its duty to restrain the federal reach:

“Should congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited its powers, or should congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the government; it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case [p. 554] requiring such a decision come before it, to say, that such an act was not the law of the land.” n40

The question before the Supreme Court in McCulloch was whether Congress has the power to incorporate a bank as an implied power among the enumerated powers of taxation. The Supreme Court answered this question in the affirmative, but not without extensive analysis and lengthy consideration of the Constitution and, most importantly, examining the intent of the founding fathers. n41 In its opinion, the Supreme Court observed, “This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers.” n42

In the 1824 case of Gibbons v. Ogden, n43 the Supreme Court again cautioned that the federal government was not permitted to intrude upon the province of the states:

“Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. This does not interfere with the power of the States to tax for the support of their own governments; nor is the exercise of that power by the States, an exercise of any portion of the power that is granted to the United States. In imposing taxes for State purposes, they are not doing what Congress is empowered to do. Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” n44

About one-hundred years later, in Linder v. United States, n45 the Supreme Court echoed its McCulloch reasoning, stating:

“Congress cannot, under the pretext of executing delegated power, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the federal government. And we accept as established doctrine that any provision of an act of Congress ostensibly enacted under power granted by the Constitution, not naturally and reasonably adapted to the effective exercise of such power, but solely to the achievement of something plainly within power reserved to the states, is invalid and cannot be enforced.” n46

A few years after Linder, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a federal statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production; the Court held that “The act invades the reserved rights of the states. It is a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural [p. 555] production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government.” n47 In United States v. Butler, n48 the Supreme Court reasoned:

“From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states or to the people ... . The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden.” n49

Likewise, some early courts attempted to articulate the meaning of the General Welfare Clause by studying the intent of the founding fathers. For example, in 1864, the Supreme Court of Indiana analyzed at length the General Welfare Clause. Notably, the Indiana court, in contrast to federal court opinions, appears to have adopted Madison’s intent instead of Hamilton’s post-ratification view. The Supreme Court of Indiana articulated the following inquiry:

“The Union and general government, then, were formed to provide for the general welfare of the United States, but what was embraced by the term, general welfare; what powers might Congress exercise, and over what, in promoting it; what subjects were considered as pertaining to the general welfare designated in the organic law of the government?” n50

And the following was the Supreme Court of Indiana’s conclusion:

“Congress ... takes no power under the General Welfare Clause, as that is not a grant of any power, but a mere expression of one of the ends to be accomplished by the exercise of the powers granted. And should Congress assume, upon its own ideas of general welfare, to exercise other powers than those granted, to carry them out, it would simply, to that extent, set up a despotism.” n51

In a 1936 Supreme Court of the United States case, Carter v. Carter Coal Co., n52 the Supreme Court re-affirmed that the General Welfare Clause cannot be used to pass social legislation. In Carter, the Supreme Court considered a challenge to legislation fixing minimum and maximum prices on coal and requiring compliance with particular labor requirements. The title of the act stated in part that a [p. 556] purpose of the act was “to provide for the general welfare[.]” n53 The Supreme Court held that the act passed under the premise of the “fallacy” that “constitutionality can be sustained under some general federal power, thought to exist, apart from the specific grants of the Constitution.” n54 The Supreme Court observed that while the “objects” of the act were “of great worth ... nothing is more certain than that beneficent aims, however great or well directed, can never serve in lieu of constitutional power.” n55 The Supreme Court concluded that Constitutional Convention:

“Carefully limited the powers which it thought wise to intrust to Congress by specifying them, thereby denying all others not granted expressly or by necessary implication. It made no grant of authority to Congress to legislate substantively for the general welfare, and no such authority exists, save as the general welfare may be promoted by the exercise of the powers which are granted.” n56

The two seminal federal circuit court opinions on the General Welfare Clause, both from 1935, each attempted to explore the original intent of America’s founding fathers with regard to taxing and apportionments under the clause. In a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. City of Independence, Kan., n57 the Tenth Circuit held that:

“Section 8 of Article 1 gives Congress the power of taxation and limits the purposes for which may be levied and appropriated, namely, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States ... . The phrase ‘general welfare’ ... must be national or general as contradistinguished from local or special.” n58

Similarly, in United States v. Certain Lands in the City of Louisville, Jefferson County, Ky., n59 the United States Court of Appeals of the Sixth Circuit denied the federal government’s effort to use the General Welfare Clause as an empowering provision to expand its taking power, rather than as a limitation. In that case, federal government agency sought to condemn a four block slum in Louisville and to build in its place new low cost housing. n60 Acknowledging that the new [p. 557] project would be beneficial to society, the Sixth Circuit nevertheless ruled that the project is not one within the scope of federal powers and rejected the government’s attempt to use the General Welfare Clause to expand the government’s authority. The Sixth Circuit stated that the scope of federal authority:

“Does not carry with it the power here claimed, to condemn private property to the end that appropriations of tax funds may be made for purposes deemed by Congress to be for the public welfare ... . The tearing down of the old buildings and the construction of new ones on the land here sought to be taken would create, it is true, a new resource for the employment of labor and capital. It is likewise true that the erection of new sanitary dwellings upon the property and the leasing or the selling of them at low prices would enable many residents of the community to improve their living conditions. It may be, too, that these group benefits, so far as they might affect the general public, would be beneficial. If, however, such a result thus attained is to be considered a public use for which the government may condemn private property, there would seem to be no reason why it could not condemn any private property which it could employ to an advantage to the public. There are perhaps many properties that the government could use for the benefit of selected groups. It might be, indeed, that by acquiring large sections of the farming parts of the country and leasing the land or selling it at low prices it could advance the interest of many citizens of the country, or that it could take over factories and other businesses and operate them upon plans more beneficial to the employees or the public, or even operate or sell them at a profit to the government to the relief of the taxpayers. The public interest that would thus be served, however, cannot, we think, be held to be a public use for which the government, in the exercise of its governmental functions, can take private property. The taking of one citizen’s property for the purpose of improving it and selling or leasing it to another, or for the purpose of reducing unemployment, is not, in our opinion, within the scope of the powers of the federal government.” n61

These two opinions from 1935 are among the first federal appellate judicial opinions specifically discussing the purpose of the General Welfare Clause. With ballooning federal budgets and spiraling pork in those budgets in recent decades, one would expect to find these two case opinions cited many hundreds of times by other courts in recent years alone, in connection with numerous analyses that one would expect to find. To the contrary, only twenty-one court opinions [p. 558] have cited Kansas Gas & Electric since the ruling in 1935. A mere three courts have cited to the case since 1944. Remarkably, since 1973, there has not been a single citation in a reported judicial opinion to Kansas Gas & Electric. Similarly, just thirty reported judicial opinions cited to Certain Lands in the City of Louisville since the 1935 ruling. Only eight of those opinions are from years after 1944 - one in 1946, three in the 1950s, two from the 1980s, one from the 1990s, and one in 2007. Moreover, some of these citations to the two opinions relate to aspects of the opinions other than the federal circuit courts’ exploration of the General Welfare Clause.

D. WHY DOES ORIGINAL INTENT EVEN MATTER?

Some critics may question why the framers’ intent is significant at all, and why courts today should study original intent. Among manifold reasons are the controlling legal principles that common law must give way to legislation and furthermore, that drafting intent clarifies any legislative uncertainty.

A fundamental maxim of law is that legislation controls over common law, which are the “maxims and customs” and the decisions of courts. n62 William Blackstone wrote that “where the common law and a statute differ, the common law gives place to the statute[.]” n63 Thus, court opinions must be consistent with controlling legislation, and the Constitution is paramount over all legislation.

In addition, “the fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator, is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made[.]” n64 Blackstone wrote, “the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it.” n65 To understand the Constitution, therefore, we must first look to the Constitution’s plain words. Should uncertainty remain, we then must explore the opinions of the Constitution’s authors and those who debated its ratification so that we can understand their intent.

The Constitution stands above men, and it stands above all other laws, to protect men from men. The Constitution binds us all, including our government and the courts. The framers wisely included within the Constitution an amendment process that is deliberative [p. 559] and has checks and balances. The framers intended that no one person or group of individuals - not the executive, the legislature, nor the courts - have unchecked jurisdiction over the other branches. The breakdown of checks and balances, as Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 78, would be perilous - “liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments[.]” n66

Finally, we should remember the sacrifices of those who secured the Constitution, and all that they risked. As Story wrote:

“To those great men, who thus framed the Constitution, and secured the adoption of it, we owe a debt of gratitude, which can scarcely be repaid. It was not then, as it is now, looked upon, from the blessings, which, under the guidance of Divine Providence, it has bestowed, with general favor and affection. On the contrary, many of those pure and disinterested patriots, who stood forth, the firm advocates of its principles, did so at the expense of their existing popularity. They felt, that they had a higher duty to perform, than to flatter the prejudices of the people, or to subserve selfish, or sectional, or local interests. Many of them went to their graves, without the soothing consolation, that their services and sacrifices were duly appreciated. They scorned every attempt to rise to power and influence by the common arts of demagogues; and they were content to trust their characters, and their conduct, to the deliberate judgment of posterity.” n67

All of the judicial opinions that I have read discussing the purpose of the General Welfare Clause cited only a few selected thoughts of the framers, typically a couple of quotations from Hamilton and a couple more by Madison. If the courts had a more comprehensive recitation of the framers’ intent before them, we should wonder whether the decisions of our courts throughout our history would have been what they were and whether the line of precedent following those decisions would have followed an entirely different path. When judicial inquiry reached the question of what powers belong to the states, perhaps the courts would have remembered the Tenth Amendment and the framers’ intent that “the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” n68 Perhaps they someday will.

[p. 560]

Indeed, we still have, as we have always had before us, two paths. We can drift at the whims of society, without rudder or sail, allowing the dictates of a few in society and the decisions of one branch to supplant the higher law that should stand above all three branches. Or, we can trust and understand that our intended system of governance with its federal restraint and checks and balances - and indeed the intent of the framers who created this system - is absolutely essential to America’s continued prosperity. The former path is but a step away from tyranny while the latter is grounded in the liberty on which this nation was founded. Unfortunately, traveling much farther down the former path will leave the American people with no recourse to reach the latter.

E. DOES $ 3.6 TRILLION OF FEDERAL SPENDING PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE?

The current administration’s $ 3.6 trillion federal budget increases government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (”GDP”) on a scale that rivals and will soon surpass the spending of socialist states in Europe. Much of this budget consists of non-enumerated spending that is not justified by or granted expressly by any provision in the Constitution or the intent of the founding fathers. Setting aside a line by line refutation of the budget, does such a massive budget itself actually provide for the general welfare? Many experts conclude that it does not.

A research study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas concluded, “growth in government stunts general economic growth. Regardless of how it is financed, an increase in government spending leads to slower economic growth.” n69 The study also observed that “increases in government spending or taxes lead to persistent decreases in the rate of job growth.” n70 A study in Public Finance Review similarly reported, “higher total government expenditure, no matter how financed, is associated with a lower growth rate of real per capita gross state product.” n71 Likewise, the Congressional Budget Office explained:

“This paper concludes that additional federal spending is unlikely to have a perceptible effect on economic growth ... . Many federal investment projects yield net economic benefits that are small, or even negative ... . Increases in federal investment spending that are not targeted toward cost beneficial [p. 561] projects can reduce growth ... . Federal spending that displaces other investment is unlikely to have a positive effect on growth ... Many federal investments are motivated primarily by noneconomic policy goals ... . Others are influenced by political considerations.” n72

These studies and reports are just a few of the numerous studies and reports with similar conclusions. Simply put, these studies show that wading any deeper into big government and socialism will only mire our nation’s people in declining capital markets, private sector job losses, and endless economic depression.

In 2000, the United States government’s spending was thirty-four percent of total spending in the economy, n73 whereas spending by the social welfare states in the sixteen nation “eurozone” was 48.2 percent of GDP. n74 In 2010, federal spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the eurozone. n75 This does not take into account fifty additional state budgets and countless local budgets. In March 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cumulative deficit from 2010 to 2019 under the current administration’s proposed budget would total $ 9.3 trillion, which would nearly double the nation’s current $ 11 trillion national debt. n76 The Congressional Budget Office also concluded that as a result of the White House’s proposed budget “debt held by the public would rise from [fifty-seven] percent of the GDP in 2009 to [eighty-two] percent of the GDP in 2019.” n77

The American people must demand accountability by the federal government to the founding documents of our nation. The federal government’s current size is leagues beyond the founding fathers’ intent. [p. 562] We can decide to stay on this path of big government socialism that will inevitably descend into bankruptcy for ourselves and our posterity. Or, we can recall the foundation of this nation, the wisdom of our founding fathers and the great documents they gave us that have led us to the blessing of prosperity for close to two and one-half centuries.

F. DOES THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE JUSTIFY A NATIONAL HEALTHCARE PLAN?

A federally created and controlled national health care system is the administration’s current proposal to spend taxpayer money. Such a proposal has no legitimacy under the General Welfare Clause, especially because it is included in the states’ domain. The federal health care proposal contemplates a detailed regime of the government making decisions about the type of care individuals receive, not to mention it necessarily must address particularly sensitive issues such as abortion and euthanasia. The General Welfare Clause cannot serve as the justification for such social legislation. The better option is that this issue should be handled at the state level, by individual states and the citizens of those states.

For the federal government to find constitutional support for a nationalized health care program, it will need to look elsewhere in the Constitution for support. Explanation of the problems with those additional arguments is beyond the scope of this Article, except to comment that those additional arguments are likewise frail.

Nonetheless, do not expect the courts to stand in the way of health care legislation or the excesses in a $ 3.6 trillion budget, regardless how far a field of the Constitution the government strays. The burden that some courts have created to strike down even blatantly unconstitutional spending is nearly insurmountable.

Instead, as it always has been, the way back to our Constitution today must rest with the people of this nation. The people must insist on elected officials who will adhere to the Constitution and maintain the integrity of the Constitution. Our government was established with a few powers held by the federal government and the rest by the states. The federal government has proven time and again that it is unable to properly manage programs, or even the federal budget, without mismanaging each program into bankruptcy. Socialized medicine would have the same end.

The liberty and prosperity of our posterity depends on returning to original intent. May we begin to remember before it is too late to save America’s future.

- - -

FOOTNOTES:

n1. Steven T. Voigt, Esquire is a lawyer with a practice based in Pennsylvania. The opinions in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of other lawyers at the author’s law firm.

n2. The author wishes to thank his wife, Amy Voigt, and his friend, Kendall Hewitt, for their insight and feedback.

n3. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8.

n4. See Citizen’s Against Government Waste, a non-profit organization, http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports pigbook2009 Oinkers (last visited Aug. 9, 2009); Citizen’s Against Government Waste, a non-profit organization, http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports pigbook2009) (last visited Aug. 9, 2009).

n5. In re U.S., 28 F. Supp. 758, 762 (W.D.N.Y. 1939) (citations omitted).

n6. The Honorable Orie L. Phillips, Constitutional Limitations on Social Legislation, 436 n.4, found in Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, Vol. 16, No. 4, The Constitution and Social Progress (Jan. 1936).

n7. Id. at 438.

n8. Id.

n9. The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and thereafter ratified by each state. By May 29, 1790, all 13 states, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island, had ratified it. The Constitution was made effective after the ninth state, New Hampshire, ratified it on June 21, 1788.

n10. James Madison, Speech in Congress Opposing the National Bank (Feb. 2, 1791) in James Madison, Madison Writings 483 (Jack N. Rakove, Ed., The Library of America (1999)).

n11. Id.

n12. Letter from James Madison to Andrew Stevenson (Nov. 27, 1830), in William E. Thro, The Education Lawyers’ Guide to the Sovereign Immunity Revolution, 146 Ed. Law. Rep. 951, n. 136 (Oct. 26, 2000).

n13. The Federalist No. 41 (James Madison) (Gary Wills Introduction, Bantam Books, Bantam Classic ed., 1982).

n14. Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of The Constitution of The United States, § 157 (Harper & Brothers ed., 1865, reprinted by The Lawbook Exchange, 1999).

n15. Alexander Hamilton, Final Version of the Report on the Subject of the Manufacturers, 40 (Syrett and Cooke eds., Washington 1913) (Dec. 5, 1791).

n16. First Fed. Savings & Loan Ass’n of Wisconsin v. Loomis, 97 F.2d 831, 844 (7th Cir. 1938).

n17. Loomis, 97 F.2d at 844.

n18. U.S. Const. amend. X.

n19. Criticizing the federal government’s expansion through judicial construction, Jefferson wrote that the judiciary is “construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to forget the maxim, ‘boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem.’” Thomas Jefferson letter to Thomas Ritchie (Dec. 25, 1820), in Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Writings (1446) (M. Peterson, Ed., The Library of America (1984)).

n20. 206 U.S. 46 (1907).

n21. Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 90 (1907). This principle of limited, enumerated federal powers was likewise found in the Articles of Confederation, America’s first constitution, which was in effect from March 1, 1781 until the ratification of the Constitution. Article II of the Articles of Confederation stated, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

n22. See Story, supra note 12, § 154.

n23. Id.

n24. Thomas Jefferson, Sixth Annual Message to Congress (Dec. 2, 1806), quoted in John C. Eastman, Lessons from the Past, 5 Green Bag 2d 207, 215 (Winter 2002).

n25. H. Jefferson Powell, Enumerated Means and Unlimited Ends, 94 Mich. L. Rev. 651, n.54 (Dec. 1995) (quoting James Madison, Report of 1800 (1799), reprinted in 17 The Papers of James Madison 314-15 (David B. Mettern ed., 1991)).

n26. Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. City of Independence, Kan., 79 F.2d 32, 38 (10th Cir. 1935) (quoting James D. Richardson, ed., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. II, 162-67 (1902)).

n27. Kansas Gas & Electric Co., 79 F.2d at 39.

n28. President James Buchanan to the House of Representatives, Feb. 24, 1859, reprinted in A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, at 3074, 3079 (7 James D. Richardson, ed., Government Printing Office, 1910).

n29. Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Oct. 1787), quoted from, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, & John Jay, The Essential Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, 139 (David Wootton, ed., Hackett Publishing Co. Indianapolis, IN 2003) (emphasis added).

n30. The Federalist No. 45 (James Madison) (emphasis added).

n31. James Wilson, The Constitution Defended (Nov. 24, 1787), quoted from, Hamilton, Madison, & Jay, supra note 27, at 106.

n32. Melancton Smith, Melancton Smith Fears the Federal Taxing Power and the Capacity of Any Free Government to Rule so Vast a Nation (Bernard Bailyn, ed. 1788) in The Debate on the Constitution, Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification, Part Two: January to August 1788 (Bernard Bailyn, ed. 1788, Library Classics of the United States, New York, N.Y. 1993).

n33. Patrick Henry, Speech of Patrick Henry (June 5, 1788), quoted from, The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates, 199, 199-200 (Ralph Ketchum, ed., Signet Classic New York, NY 2003).

n34. George Mason, Objections to the Constitution of Government Formed by the Convention (Nov. 1787), quoted from, Hamilton, Madison, & Jay, supra note 27, at 3.

n35. Alexander Hamilton, Final Version of the Report on the Subject of the Manufacturers, 29 (Syrett and Cooke eds., Washington 1913) (Dec. 5, 1791).

n36. Alexander Hamilton, Letter Respecting the Administration of Government (Aug. 18, 1792), in Selected Writings and Speeches of Alexander Hamilton, at 349-50 (Morton J. Frisch, ed., American Enterprise Institute 1985).

n37. Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Taylor (1816), in 10 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 1816-1826, at 31 (Paul Leicester Ford, ed., G.P. Putnam’s Sons 1899).

n38. James Madison, The Union: Who Are Its Real Friends?, National Gazette Apr. 2, 1792, appearing in James Madison, supra note 8, at 518-19.

n39. 17 U.S. 316 (1819).

n40. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 423 (1819).

n41. McCulloch, 17 U.S. at 425.

n42. Id. at 405.

n43. 22 U.S. 1 (1824).

n44. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 76 (1824).

n45. 268 U.S. 5 (1925).

n46. Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 17 (1925).

n47. U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 68, (1936).

n48. 297 U.S. 1 (1936).

n49. Butler, 297 U.S. at 1 (emphasis added).

n50. Thayer v. Hedges, 1864 WL 1937, at 4 (Ind. 1864).

n51. Thayer, 1864 WL 1937 at 11.

n52. 298 U.S. 238 (1936).

n53. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936).

n54. Carter, 298 U.S. at 289-90.

n55. Id. at 290-91.

n56. Id. at 292 (citations omitted).

n57. 79 F.2d 32 (10th Cir. 1935).

n58. Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. City of Independence, Kan., 79 F.2d 32, 41 (10th Cir. 1935).

n59. 78 F.2d 684 (6th Cir. 1935).

n60. United States v. Certain Lands in the City of Louisville, Jefferson County, Ky., 79 F.2d 684, 684-85 (6th Cir. 1935).

n61. Certain Lands in the City of Lousiville, Jefferson County, Ky.,79 F.2d at 686-88.

n62. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, A Facsimile of the First Edition 1765-1769, Volume I, 67 (Stanley N. Katz ed., Oxford Press 1979) (1769).

n63. Id. at 89.

n64. Id. at 59.

n65. Id. at 61.

n66. The Federalist No. 78 (Alexander Hamliton).

n67. Joseph Story, supra note 12, § 40.

n68. The Federalist No. 45 (James Madison) (emphasis added).

n69. Dong Fu, Lori L. Taylor, & Mine KY. Yucel, Fiscal Policy and Growth, 8 (Fed. Reserve Bank of Dallas Research Dep’t, Jan. 2003).

n70. Id. at 10.

n71. S. M. Miller & F. S. Russek, “Fiscal Structures and Economic Growth at the State and Local Level,” 25 No. 2 Pub. Finance R. 213, (1997).

n72. Nabeel Alsalam, Perry Beider, Kathy Gramp, & Philip Webre, The Economic Effects of Federal Spending on Infrastructure and Other Investments, Congressional Budget Office (June 1998), available at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/6xx/doc601/fedspend.pdf.

n73. Ralph R. Reiland, Massive Expansion of U.S. Gov’t Gives Socialism a Shot in the Arm, Investor’s Bus. Daily (May 19, 2009), available at http://license.icopyright. net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=NJU5MzE0Ng==.

n74. Jerome Corsi, U.S. Becoming History’s Largest Welfare State, WorldNetDaily, Apr. 26, 2009, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95918.

n75. Karen Hart, Obama’s budget will make us the most socialist country in the world, The Examiner, Apr. 21, 2009, http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Obamas-budget-will-make-us-the-mo... The euro-zone is a currency union of 16 European states which have adopted the euro as their sole legal tender. The eurozone currently consists of Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain.

n76. Douglas M. Elmendorf, A Preliminary Analysis of the President’s Budget and an Update of CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook, Congressional Budget Office, March 2009, 11, available at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/Chapter1.5.1. shtml#1092014.

n77. Id. at 13.

http://www.americaspartynews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=15844&posts=5&start=1


231 posted on 07/14/2012 11:07:08 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (If you've surrendered your principles out of fear of Obama, you've already lost. - TomHoefling.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I’ll try to get around to those long posts, EV, but it’s Sunday and I’m a pastor. Perhaps tomorrow or Tuesday.


232 posted on 07/15/2012 3:13:35 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

The point is, JC, that any effort to rid us of social security by trying to declare it unconstitutional will fail.

It will be changed by being overturned as obsolete, ineffective, bad money management, etc.

But, we also all know that it’s the 3rd rail in politics.


233 posted on 07/15/2012 3:19:12 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: techno

Not getting this and need your help. PPP is a Democrat leaning pollster and always has been. Gallup,Rasmussen etc have Romney up with Ind by anywheres from 9-14 points and yet this poll shows him lagging badly among Independents even without Goode.

So what am I missing and what were the demographics of this poll?


234 posted on 07/15/2012 5:41:55 AM PDT by drago15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana
Virgil Goode is a former Democrat
_________________________________________
So is Willard

Yeeeeeowwwwwwwch! Good shot, Nana!

235 posted on 07/15/2012 1:40:19 PM PDT by Finny (A deal with the devil is ALWAYS a losing proposition. Voting for Romney to avoid Obama is just that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative; muawiyah
MC to MWY: But when we get 4 more years of Obama, don’t you bitch once, not once ...

And you, MissCon, if we get four years of Romney, Moderate Republicans, and Democrats outmanning and outvoting conservatives and steadily advancing global warming regulations, nationalized health care with abortion-on-demand, activist judicial picks, the complete homosexual agenda, and more and more government tyranny, don’t you bitch once, not once ....

236 posted on 07/15/2012 1:54:03 PM PDT by Finny (A deal with the devil is ALWAYS a losing proposition. Voting for Romney to avoid Obama is just that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Aww, not another Internet tough guy. Those wimps are a dime a dozen. If you need a tissue head on down to the local store and let the adults talk.


237 posted on 07/17/2012 2:01:14 AM PDT by MissouriConservative (Voting Anyone but Obama in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative

And there you have it - only adults compromise their beliefs and vote for Romney.


238 posted on 07/17/2012 6:05:08 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

And only children think their actions don’t affect anything. I’m not compromising at all. My sole aim right now is to get Obama out of the White House before he destroys my country. Some fantasize about claiming both the Senate and House. That’s all well and good but it won’t stop Obama and you know it. We will never have a veto proof majority. Obama will EO his way to hell.

And just for the record, adults do compromise. Go read the notes of the founding fathers who put together the Constitution. Compromise is what built that document. Your fantasy world of getting everything you want in a candidate is what has gotten Conservatives right where we are now...but hey that’s ok because I’m fairly sure your sole aim is to get Obama reelected.


239 posted on 07/17/2012 12:29:08 PM PDT by MissouriConservative (Voting Anyone but Obama in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative

“Obama will EO his way to hell.”

So will Romney. I know you don’t care about Obamacare and saving unborn babies, but some of us do. Putting Romney in to replace Obama effectively destroys any chance of putting any prolifer ever into the presidency.

I’d rather see 4 years of Obama than see Romney in for 8.


240 posted on 07/17/2012 1:39:32 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Ah, a single issue voter. Nevermind what I’ve said, you’re one of those types that has to have the perfect candidate. If you were alive in 1776, you would have sided with the British because not every founding father would hold up to your “perfect” test.

Bye.


241 posted on 07/17/2012 4:41:35 PM PDT by MissouriConservative (Voting Anyone but Obama in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative

Nonsense.

You’re the type that’s replaced Washington with Benedict Arnold, and expect the rest of us to vote for Benedict Arnold.

I was very happy with Santorum. So where are you getting this nonsense that ‘no one is good enough.


242 posted on 07/17/2012 6:32:53 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative

I love these guys who apparently have the Back to the Future Political almanac so they can chart the entire future, but still can’t figure out how to make money off the book...


243 posted on 07/17/2012 6:36:54 PM PDT by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

So you were happy with a RINO in Santorum? You’re nothing but a spoiled hypocrite...lol.


244 posted on 07/17/2012 6:45:57 PM PDT by MissouriConservative (Voting Anyone but Obama in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative

LOL Santorum is a RINO and Romney is not?

LMFAO.


245 posted on 07/17/2012 10:16:52 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; xzins
This is wonderful - but ultimately meaningless, since your "Virgil Goode thinks the welfare state is sacrosanct" talk is not based on reality, but is the result of a liberal application of the patented "Tom Hoefling special interpretation sauce" that you've become famous for over the years.

After all, you're the guy who thinks Michelle Bachmann is a flaming pro-abortionist, so we can see how credible your political impressions really are.

246 posted on 07/18/2012 10:26:32 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy (not voting for the lesser of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
“Nevertheless, my point still stands - anyone who doesn’t want to touch 18.74% of the budget, especially when much of that amounts to spending on wars we shouldn’t even be in and on bases in places we don’t need to be anymore, simply is not serious about balancing the budget or reducing spending.”

Sure, after all the unconstitutional spending is taken out.

No - at the same time as the rest is cut out. Again, you can't say that we're not going to touch 19% of the budget and the largest or second-largest portion (depending, apparently, on how things are accounted by whichever source you're using) and still claim to be serious about fiscal responsibility.

Besides, if we want to be serious about constitutionality, how about we start getting back to the constitutional principle that Congress could only allocate funds for armies (land forces) for specified periods of time and for specific reasons, instead of having a huge standing army consuming resources like crazy? Remember what the founders thought about large standing armies?

If conservatives want to be constitutionalists, then by all means, let's be consistent about it.

247 posted on 07/18/2012 10:34:52 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy (not voting for the lesser of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy; EternalVigilance
Tom Hoefling special interpretation sauce

My sense to date, Yash, is that EV is a sincere actor. I do not think he has the resources or the experience to be the president, and I don't think the Alan Keyes party is of any consequence, although admittedly the Constitution Party is struggling, too, under the constraints imposed by the 2 party bureaucrats to prevent 3rd parties from rising. In any case, EV seems to be trying seriously to advance his candidacy here on the pages of free republic.

So, I take a lot of what he says to be campaign spin, the same as I would with any other candidate.

It's campaign sauce....not to be confused with champagne sauce, wonderful with fish stock.

248 posted on 07/18/2012 11:57:51 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Yeah, a RINO. Only a RINO would say this -

"This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone."

Santorum's comments concerning George Zimmerman raise all sorts of red RINO flags.

His support of Arlen Specter - more red RINO flags.

This is written about the RINO -

"In his book he comments, seemingly with a shrug, “Some will reject what I have to say as a kind of ‘Big Government’ conservatism.”

They sure will. A list of the government interventions that Santorum endorses includes national service, promotion of prison ministries, “individual development accounts,” publicly financed trust funds for children, community-investment incentives, strengthened obscenity enforcement, covenant marriage, assorted tax breaks, economic literacy programs in “every school in America” (his italics), and more. Lots more."

LINK

More on the great "conservative" Santorum -

The evidence does show that Santorum was opposed to ethanol before 9/11. Twice, in 1997 and 1998, Santorum voted to end ethanol subsidies. And the evidence also shows that, at times, he was supportive of an ethanol mandate after 9/11. But in 2005, Santorum voted to end the ethanol mandate. If the original flip-flop was a principled stand taken by Santorum because of national security concerns, we’re at a loss to explain this flip-flop-flip-again vote.

In the same “50 Things” campaign brochure, Santorum boasts about sponsoring a bill to regulate “price gouging and unfair pricing by the big oil companies.” This contradicts his opposition to a “windfall profits tax” that Democrats tried to impose on oil companies in 2005. He also voted YES on Sarbanes-Oxley, which was an overreaching bill that tried to tighten accounting regulations following the Enron scandal.

LINK

So don't give me that crap about good ole saint Rick. It's all hogwash. Abortion is the only reason you sided with Santorum....a one trick pony, a single issue voter who is going to try their best to get Obama re-elected.
249 posted on 07/18/2012 5:22:29 PM PDT by MissouriConservative (Voting Anyone but Obama in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy

“Again, you can’t say that we’re not going to touch 19% of the budget and the largest or second-largest portion (depending, apparently, on how things are accounted by whichever source you’re using) and still claim to be serious about fiscal responsibility.”

If you gut the other 81 percent of unconstitutional spending, then yes, you are advocating fiscal responsibility. The federal government has the constitutional obligation to protect the nation. Where is the constitutional right to welfare? To social security? Cut those first and then we can talk about cutbacks to the military.

“Congress could only allocate funds for armies (land forces) for specified periods of time and for specific reasons”

And, last I checked, there’s a war going on.

“Remember what the founders thought about large standing armies?”

What do you think George Washignton’s response would have been to 9-11? Oh, wait, we already have that response - “shores of Tripoli”. r

Do you think they would have put up with this half-assed no-effort war? No. They would have fought and fought to win.

If conservatives want to be constitutionalists, then by all means, let’s be consistent about


250 posted on 07/19/2012 2:21:55 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-269 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson