[Congressman Billybob]

As usual, Dr. Walter Williams has nailed it. The Constitution as written has been turned on its head by a Supreme Court which believes that the Constitution belongs to the Court, not the other way around.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "In Praise of Bigotry," discussion thread. (ChronWatch used a longer title than my original.)

[tpaine]

I reread the Constitution, looking to see whether an amendment had been passed authorizing Congress to spend money on bailouts for airlines, prescription drugs, education, Social Security and thousands of similar items in today's federal budget. I found no such amendment.
Being thorough, I reread the Constitution and found what Congress might interpret as a blank check authorization -- the "general welfare clause."

[Aracelis]

I have only 2 words: "Ohhh, Walter!" :^)

[pdjplano]

one should pick up the anti-federalist papers, not as well known, but eery in predictive quality :)

[ETERNAL WARMING]

Lastly, it's today's Americans who have contempt for the Constitution, and any congressman or president upholding the Constitution's letter and spirit would be tarred and feathered.

Bingo! Anyone who upholds the Constitution is a nazi, a DUer, a Bushbasher, an immature, misinformed nitwit, an extremist, a pariah who costs certain Presidents re-election. Imagine that. :0)

[MitchellC]

Excellent.

[KrisKrinkle]

"My investigative query is: Were the Founders and previous congressmen and presidents, who could not find constitutional authority for today's bread and circuses, just plain stupid and ignorant?"

No. They were unauthorized while their successors have been authorized, at least in theory.

Note the following:

ARTICLE (IX.)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

ARTICLE (X.)

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.


One of the rights retained by the people would be the right to have their representatives act on their behalf. And since powers that are not delegated to the United States may be reserved to the people, the people must also have the right to have their representatives act on their behalf to accomplish whatever the people themselves have the reserved power to accomplish.

In brief, while the Founders had no authorization to do things that would fall within the category of "bread and circuses", if the people have the reserved power to do those things, they have the right to have the Founders successors do those things on their behalf, and by doing so the people give the Founders successors authorization.

All that is theory.

In actuality, I fear that instead of doing what the people want done, the Founders successors do what they themselves want to do and then tell the people what the people want.

[Texas_Jarhead]

"general welfare" BUMPMARK

[Spiff]

The comments by the esteemed Dr. Walter Williams fly in the face of alot of the manure you've been shoveling about your interpretation of the Constitution and the powers you believe that the Congress legitimately possesses.

[k2blader]

Walter E. Williams bump!

[Calvin Locke]

Look at who was eligible to vote at the time of the establishment of the Constitution.

Look at who is able to vote now.

Universal Sufferage doesn't work without safeguards on, oh heck, the USSC doesn't believe in safeguards, or the Constitution.

[ZULU]

Maybe we need to wipe the entire legal slate clean with respect to Constitutional law, and start again, on the right track - with the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Federalist Papers as the ONLY doucments the nine idiots on the Supreme Court are permitted to employ, and only in the same sense the original framers intended.

[Sir Gawain]

The first is that the great men who laid the framework for our nation were not only constitutionally ignorant but callous and uncaring, as well.

Huh?

[Ulysses]

bump for later

[PhilipFreneau]

Here is a little more (I posted this in FR on 11/06/2003)...

Years after the Federalist Papers, Madison used his seat in the House of Representatives to combat abuse of the general welfare term, as in this argument of 1792: "It would be absurd to say, first, that Congress may do what they please, and then that they may do this or that particular thing. After giving Congress power to raise money and apply it to all purposes which they may pronounce necessary to the general welfare, it would be absurd, to say the least, to superadd a power to raise armies, to provide fleets, etc."

Further, Madison stated the "general welfare" term came from the Articles of Confederation, and, "it was always considered [in the Articles of Confederation] as clear and certain that the old Congress was limited to the enumerated powers, and that the enumeration limited and explained the general terms."

Madison warned, "If Congress can apply money indefinitely on the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands, they may establish teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads. In short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress."

Madison and Jefferson owned a newspaper called the National Gazette. In 1792, the Editor, Philip Freneau, wrote a satire on usurpation containing these words: "... in order to render success the more certain, it will be of special moment to give the most plausible and popular name that can be found to the power that is to be usurped. It may be called, for example, a power for the common safety or the public good, or, "the general welfare" . . . If the people should not be too much enlightened, the name will have a most imposing effect. It will escape attention that it means, in fact, the same thing with a power to do anything the government pleases "in all cases whatsoever." To oppose the power may consequently seem to be ignorant, and be called by the artful, opposing the "general welfare," and may be cried down under that deception."

[BSunday]

and any congressman or president upholding the Constitution's letter and spirit would be tarred and feathered.

BINGO!

PS when I read the title, I automatically thought of todays Supreme Court

[BSunday]

Bonnie Blue Flag Ping

This ping list concerns matters of American Sovereignty and Individual Liberty. If you want on or off this list please let me know.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[Ohioan]

bump

See, also, Constitutional Overview.

William Flax

[Texas Federalist]

Bump for later.