[paraclete]

It is marvellous to be stuck in the eighteenth century, with a Constitution like this you can never go forward, though to have been founded by men of so little imagination

[tomder55]

Ho humm.. I've already explained that there is a process to amend. It's happened 27 times so we know it can be done. The left loves to bypass that inconvenient obstacle and use judicial fiat .

[TUT317]

that is why I go further and read the Federalist Papers ,the Anti-Federalist Papers ,and the ratification debates . Madison made it clear that the general welfare can only be advanced in accordance to the defined and ,limitted powers that are clearly enumerated .

So you don't think that it is a problem that he didn't say 'general welfare' of people? Or, is it expressed as 'general welfare of the people' elsewhere.

Tut

[tomder55]

No it isn't and he clarified that in the quote I provided in Federalist 41.

Here are some of the greviences presented in the Declaration of Independence . You tell me if people who wrote this would empower a government with unlimited taxing power in the name of the general welfare .

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance

Would the people who wrote this approve of the pretzel logic applied to expand government ?

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments

Edit . General welfare is mentioned twice... in the Preamble and in Art 1 Sec8 .
The preamble reads: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Article 1, Sec 8 refers to the “general welfare” “The Congress shall have 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.. . ” NOT THE PEOPLE OR WE THE PEOPLE . Jefferson said the danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “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 be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”

The answer lies in the 10th amendment which grants powers to the States that the Federal Government does not have ;and should be no part of.

[talaniman]

The flaw in your argument is you keep skipping we the people. Its is us that has the final power to eliminate anything the congress has done and replace it with what we want done. That's the final balance to government.

Its both the power, and responsibility of the people to have the first, and last say of our government. That's why we the people must be informed, and vigilante in who we elect to represent us. The government works for US, it can only do what we allow it to do, and THAT was the original intent of the founding fathers.

I doubt seriously they intended any other institution, not churches, or corporations to be more influential in policy or practice, on the general welfare of its people.

[TUT317]

no it isn't and he clarified that in the quote I provided in Federalist 41.

Here are some of the greviences presented in the Declaration of Independence . You tell me if people who wrote this would empower a government with unlimited taxing power in the name of the general welfare .

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance

Would the people who wrote this approve of the pretzel logic applied to expand government ?

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments

edit . general welfare is mentioned twice ... in the Preamble and in Art 1 Sec8 .
The preamble reads: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Article 1, Sec 8 refers to the “general welfare” “The Congress shall have 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. . .” NOT THE PEOPLE OR WE THE PEOPLE . Jefferson said the danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “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 be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”

The answer lies in the 10th amendment which grants powers to the States that the Federal Government does not have ;and should be no part of.

Hi again Tom,

Yes I see. Article 1. Sec 8.

There is no doubt as to the intent, the historical evidence seems to be everywhere. But I think the actual wording could be a bit of a problem.

Perhaps they could have said something like

Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises to pay Debts and provide for the common good...

The word 'good' doesn't have a naturalistic meaning. It is an open question as to how we can define it. If something is very hard to define then there doesn't seem much point in asking the Federal Government to
Spread some of it around. On second thought that might not be a solution because, 'good' would have been regarded as having a naturalistic definition.

Back in those days I think, 'general welfare of the United states' would have had an essentialist meaning as applied to the concepts. It would also seem to me that this forces us to define that which is essential and that which is non-essential while at the same time leaving it's essence intact. Goes back to my earlier post. How do we do this impossible task while at the same time being forced to derive a meaning.

I don't have a problem with the history- just a problem with a few words.

Tut

[talaniman]

I have a problem with the intent of those words when put in the context of additional facts, and a changed circumstances. The founding fathers probably never envisioned going to the moon, invading other countries, mega, multinational corporations,massive political ads, or the great depression.

Theory against actual circumstances. If language evolves and changes with time, so must our interpretations change. After all we have to include new concepts that affect us like bundled financial derivatives.

Explain that to Hamilton,and Jefferson. I would love to see the revised Federalist papers for the 21st century.

[TUT317]

I have a problem with the intent of those words when put in the context of additional facts, and a changed circumstances. The founding fathers probably never envisioned going to the moon, invading other countries, mega, multinational corporations,massive political ads, or the great depression.

Theory against actual circumstances. If language evolves and changes with time, so must our interpretations change. After all we have to include new concepts that affect us like bundled financial derivatives.

Explain that to Hamilton,and Jefferson. I would love to see the revised Federalist papers for the 21st century.

Hi Tal,

Language is a labyrinth now and it was back then.

If we want to investigate the essentialist meanings of words such as Taxation, Duties, Imports we find that it to some extent possible. For example, taxation. What type laws can we do away with in terms of taxation and still claim that we are implementing taxation and not something else? I think it is possible to do this. Not that we are actually forced to offer and essentialist definition for taxation. We know what taxation is and we might have some idea about how to spread this around to promote the general welfare of the population

However, when it comes to 'general welfare' we are driven to an essentialist explanation. Why? Because we not told the meaning. But naturally assume the words have some meaning in the quote.

Are we to say that the things set aside in Sec 8. are the domain of the Federal Government because they are the essence of general welfare? Or are there some other things we can include?

These two questions are impossible to answer because we don't know what the essence of 'general welfare' actually is and to complicate it a bit more we are never told.However, all of this is speculation and doesn't really apply because Sec 8 says,"and the general welfare" So we have even less of a foothold.

[NeedKarma]

The flaw in your argument is you keep skipping we the people. Its is us that has the final power to eliminate anything the congress has done and replace it with what we want done. Thats the final balance to government.

Unfortunately Tal I think you've lost control of that part. I'm not sure what you can do to regain it.

[tomder55]

Tal ,I always believe that the people are the final arbiters too. Unfortunately the horse was let out of the barn many years ago with decisions like Marbury v Madison ;and then New Deal power grabs like United States v. Butler,and Helvering v. Davis .

[talaniman]

Its human nature to grab power, AND wealth. That's why we the people have to vote in OUR interest, and not allow power and wealth to make choices for us, in just there own interest. If indeed if the powerful, and wealth were good neighbors, and partners, there would be no opposition to them from me.

But they don't seem to care what I need, or want, so my vote will be against what they need and want. All the while knowing we have to co operate on some level.

[paraclete]

ho humm.. I've already explained that there is a process to amend. It's happened 27 times so we know it can be done. The left loves to bypass that inconvenient obstacle and use judicial fiat .

Tom my comment was in reference to constantly referring back to original intent, if an amendemnt has taken place then you should not refer back any further than to that point, in any case most of those amendments were afterthoughts like the many years of debate was too short to get it right the first time and that should tell you something about original intent

[tomder55]

if an amendemnt has taken place then you should not refer back any further than to that point, in any case most of those amendments were afterthoughts like the many years of debate was too short to get it right the first time and that should tell you something about original intent

Nah ;the amendments were adjusting to evolving times and the proper way to deal with evolving times.

I just want to say to those who claim the document is outdated because it was written 225 years ago by dead "rich" white guys should consider that the 1st 10 amendments.. aka.. the Bill of Rights was written 225 years ago by the same dead "rich" white guys . I have yet to hear a lib say that evolving times has changed them from their original intent.

[paraclete]

I just want to say to those who claim the document is outdated because it was written 225 years ago by dead "rich" white guys should consider that the 1st 10 amendments ..aka ..the Bill of Rights was written 225 years ago by the same dead "rich" white guys . I have yet to hear a lib say that evolving times has changed them from their original intent.

Well Tom I don't know there has been a great deal of recent intrepretation and debate which might suggest that society has changed somewhat. Your church and state thing comes up for a lot of debate and you couldn't say commerce could be intrepreted in eighteenth century terms or intent. The taxing powers also appear to be somewhat limited in an era of much greater state control of economies in general But then federal taxation wasn't original intent. I wonder if those eighteenth century rich guys comtemplated legislation with thousands of pages of text and regulation? And if we look at the military and projection of military power, they had no intent of projecting military power beyond national borders and no concept of weapons of mass destruction, what then can you say of their intent. I think their intent was to continue to own slaves and limit civil liberties, somewhat counter to today's culture but in line with an agrian privileged existence they didn't necessarily see as becoming the norm for all citizens. As to the amendment process it took two hundred years to ratify one of those original amendments, so much for original intent as a closely followed concept

[tomder55]

The taxing powers also appear to be somewhat limited in an era of much greater state control of economies in general... I wonder if those eighteenth century rich guys comtemplated legislation with thousands of pages of text and regulation?

Of course they did and recognized the danger of the Leviatan . I assure you they read Hobbes. This is what they rebelled against.

[paraclete]

NO Tom too easy, they rebelled not against taxation and regulation but against the arbitrary nature of royal power and the lack of representation in decision making. They didn't want to finance foreign wars, somewhat at odds with today's views. Those were simpler days when a week of Congress a year was enough to set the course and Taxation consisted of excise and poll tax and you cannot say they were in favour of draconian legislation or a legislature that failed to get its job done.

I think the whole concept of original intent in today's context is pure rhetoric

[tomder55]

when a week of Congress a year was enough to set the course

Yeah today a week of Congress is a week too many .

[paraclete]

,

[paraclete]

So you are in favour of Presidential decree then , get more done and no argy bargy

[talaniman]

Tom wants the corporations, and the churches to make laws and policies, and tell the government what to do.