Davy Crockett on Charity

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Constitution_Issues/davy_crockett_and_charity.htm ^

[mrsmith]

"Those who think they know better than the authors and ratifiers of the Constitution what is constitutional are self-professed fools "

I suppose that statement is hard for a living constitutionalist to understand, considering the intellectual limits that incline one to be a living constitutionalist.

The Constitution must mean what it always meant. Or it means nothing.

[Graybeard58]

I do not profess to be a constitutional expert but am anxious to see your reply to "BlackbirdSST" in post #17.

If congress does indeed have constitutional authority to give tax money to other countries or individuals I would like to see chapter and verse.

[LibertarianInExile]

Bump!

[Graybeard58]

I suppose that statement is hard for a living constitutionalist to understand, considering the intellectual limits that incline one to be a living constitutionalist.

Yet another personal attack but still no facts.

Someone who reads into the constitution that which is not there is a "living constitutionalist"

If it's there, show me where I have erred.

[mrsmith]

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton... all the Founders supported giving money to other nations.

It is not an insult to call those who claim otherwise living constitutionalists. It is a statement of historical fact.

[LS]

Absolutely not. But common sense also says Davy Crockett was much further from so-called "Libertarian" ideas than this post would have people believe. He also supported military action, often, both against Indians and against the Mexican army.

I love Davy Crockett---he gets a lot of ink in my book, "A Patriot's History of the United States" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1595230017/qid=1092168718/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/002-0543492-4011203?v=glance&s=books but he was a staunch Whig.

[LS]

Any national defense clause permits the government to protect United States' security, and if that involves directing money to other countries, that is covered. Washington said that paying tribute to the Barbaray pirates was constitutional, and no one disagreed, until we had a navy powerful enough to confront the pirates.

[mrsmith]

Under Washington we also gave money to indian tribes.

In the Madison administration we gave "foreign aid" specifically in relief of a natural disaster like this tsunami. That was for a Venzuela earthquake in 1812.

[Graybeard58]

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton... all the Founders supported giving money to other nations.

Well at least you didn't call me a "fool" that time or accuse me of having low intellect, so you are gertting better.

If those wise men you mentioned believed it was ok to give money to other countries or individuals why wasn't it written into the constitution?

It seems to me that you are the one who is a "living constitutionalist" - That which you are accusing others of.

Please cite the clause in the U.S. constitution that gives congress the power to give away my money.

Try to do it without any more personal attacks.

[Graybeard58]

Under Washington we also gave money to indian tribes.

In the Madison administration we gave "foreign aid" specifically in relief of a natural disaster like this tsunami. That was for a Venzuela earthquake in 1812.

Citing instances of past practices doesn't make it more or less constitutional it only means that it has been done for a long time.

[mrsmith]

Don't you think it's your claim that the Founders- all the Founders in this case- didn't know what the Constitution meant that needs to be defended?

A living constitutionalist wouldn't of course.

[LS]

No, it means that the very men who DRAFTED the Constitution knew what it meant better than you.

[NMC EXP]

Congress has authority to give money to other countries

I am looking at Article I. section 8 and cannot find that authority listed in the enumerated powers. A liberal interpretation of the "general Welfare" perhaps?

And don't bother to support your assertion with examples. I am starting to come around to the idea that the Constitution was not worth the paper it was written on from the git-go. Your defense only bolsters that opinion.

[LS]

Exactly: we can't have it both ways. ONLY if the constitution is a "living document" can we ignore what the FOUNDERS thought the constitution meant---and they clearly thought it included things like the use of tax dollars for bribes, payoffs, support to Indians, etc., all in the name of national defense.

Their concerns were less over HOW the money was spent than WHO had the autorization to spend it, and as long as it was Congress doing the authorizing, most of the Founders considered that constitutional, and the Marshall court agreed.

[TheBattman]

I posted same story the last time disaster relief was debated on here. I totally agree with Crockett's point of view, but unfortunately the precedent has been set.

[mrsmith]

There were people with your view even in the earliest years of the republic.

Senator MacClay is the best known example:
"...Memorandum: Get, if I can, The Federalist [Papers] without buying it. It is not worth it. But, being a lost book, Izard, or some one else, will give it to me. It certainly was instrumental in procuring the adoption of the Constitution. This is merely a point of curiosity and amusement to see how wide of its explanations and conjectures the stream of business has taken its course. "
From his journal of the First Senate.

Even the contrary and anti-government MacClay supported giving money to other nations however.

[Recon Dad]

I wish I had your Ron Paul, but I am stuck with John Boehner, who has decided that the most important thing he can do is get reelected. My quandary is that here I am in a heavily conservative area, solid red zone and I have no alternatives. The party will never back someone else because they lose the seniority and that means less bacon coming home. The days of citizen representatives is over. If you take a position like Ron Paul your fighting the party system designed to reward those who conform.
A person who knows he has only 6 or 8 years to serve will be more inclined to make decisions that are not based on getting elected in the future.
I appreciate the presidents efforts in education reform, but I don't know that this is an area covered in the Constitution. At least he isn't throwing money at the education problem.
Thanks you for your response.

[mrsmith]

A link to MacClay's Journal.
Libertarian and anti-federalist freepers all should treat themselves to reading it sometime.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(mj001T000)):

[NMC EXP]

Citing instances of past practices doesn't make it more or less constitutional it only means that it has been done for a long time.

That is worth repeating.

I suspect that you may be arguing with lawyers who believe in the concept of "case law".

[mrsmith]

Yes, matters that the Founders did not address- or were anbiguous or divided upon- are wide open to debate .

But when the understanding was universally agreed upon- what's the point in even discussing it?

In fairness, this thread has Crockett's (apocryphal?) remarks upon domestic charity not foreign charity. The federal power domestically was very limited and it is not at all clear that it is constitutional for the feds to give money to American citizens. Like Madison, I personally don't think so.