Republican Candidate in the Making

I wonder where he gets HIS healthcare...

You can start with Federalist 41.

Also: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” (Madison 1792)

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
(Madison)


It 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 be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. (Jefferson on National Bank 1791) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj...

The general welfare clause was borrowed from Franklin's work on the Articles of Confederation

"I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
See also Writings of Benjamin Franklin http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf3/p...

When talking about the Federalist Papers, James Madison himself said this: "Theoretical reasoning must be qualified by the lessons of practice." I only mention this because some folks seem to want to view the Federalist Papers as something set in concrete. The ideas discussed and debated in the papers were about achieving of a more "perfect union" in order to preserve the "safety and welfare" of it's citizens. Obviously that goal raises many questions when we look at the present state of government, not the least of which (imo) has to do with the disconnect between the primary intent of the founders (the concept of a perfect union) and our current highly polarized national environment. I have to believe that the founders would look at the present state of affairs in the USA (meaning how things have devolved over the past few decades) and wonder what happened.

Or, for a less partisan (and perhaps more coherent) offering than CATO's:

http://www.gradesaver.com/the-federalist-papers...

...which is more about checks and balances than class war paranoia.

"I only mention this because some folks seem to want to view the Federalist Papers as something set in concrete."

It may seem that way to you, but you are incorrect. Meanwhile, the current problem, and one that is much worse, is to claim as well as imagine anything can be tortured in misconstruction to mean whatever one wants something to "mean" so as to rationalize getting what one wants -- a long-standing problem.

It may be beyond the grasp of some (including many who support creative "malleability"), but nobody has a right to say that "red" (or "scarlet" or "crimson") means, or "must" now mean, green.

Pete,

"Picking up on one of this young man’s points: Can anyone provide links to the sources wherein Jefferson, Madison, and/or Franklin indicated that the 'general welfare' clause in Article I of the Constitution should be limited to the enumerated powers of Congress?"

The principal source has been identified already, though it always merits repeating. The powers of the federal government are limited, while people's rights (not "rights" by liberals that are claims to things, like entitlements, including health care) are not limited (which is the real meaning of the Ninth Amendment).

The principal source, the most direct addressing of this issue (which is not necessary, but merits our attention), is in Federalist 41. What was said is obviously logical. There is no broad or general power granted to the federal government (and which is not conveyed by the "necessary and proper" clause). The Tenth Amendment amounts to a repetition more than a clarification of this fact or anything new. If there were broad or unlimited power in Washington, we would say so and would not bother enumerating what the federal government may do (which in so stating establishes or at least implies limitations).

See the bottom for the source (the last part of Federalist 41). What was true then is true today.

Since the 1930s we have in large measure been replacing constitutional federalism with a de facto (though not de jure) unitary state with Washiongton as a truly national government (state and local powers and state soveriegnty have been routinely violated and withered, with broad public approval in many cases, which is a key reason why it has flourished -- people routinely look first, not last, and often only, to Washington as "government" when thinking of what [a] government can or should do). If we really wanted this to proceed to its legal (and make it legitimate) as well as logical end (rendering moot the still-valid concern about new and _existing_ federal entitlements to individuals, like health care), we would repeal the Tenth Amendment and (that not being enough by itself, _obviously_) we would explicitly grant broad or unlimited powers to Congress, including some kind of stipulation inverting or reversing the Tenth Amendment such that all powers not stated explicitly are retained (to be exercised as desired) by Washington (as opposed legally though not in practice normally to the states and localities). Some might want also to explicitly repeal state citizenship (have only national citizenship as a result) and in so doing go farther to address the concern of federal supremacy versus dual sovereignty (where in true law each government, federal and state, only has legitimate power within its proper realm).

Don't expect such rationality any time soon. Having Washington encroach more and more, with large-scale deference by the public (or even the seeking of it by many among the public) has been the state of affairs for decades.

*********************

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!

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm

Pete--

I realize I'm coming pretty late to this, but do you endorse this man's contention that McCaskill owes an apology for simply working on health care?

I really enjoy the writings of our Framers, but they were never intended to be Holy Scripture. Thomas Jefferson never meant for there to be minimum safety standards for personal vehicles, Ben Franklin never endorsed agricultural inspectors, and James Madison never approved of law imposing time zones on the public. Yet all of those things have been found to be necessary for the functioning of a modern nation.

In fact, there is no justification for Thomas Jefferson using Presidential powers to purchase Louisianna. James Madison thought the Bank of the United States was unconstitutional, but asked it be rechartered simply because it would be easier for him to finance a war with it being operational (his experience as President also led him to drop his opposition to a standing army). Ben Franklin, on the other hand, never held elective office in the federal government. So he could cling to his ideas without worrying about reality.

"I really enjoy the writings of our Framers, but they were never intended to be Holy Scripture."

That sounds "nifty" to say, and we can all say the old codgers never envisioned space flight and 300 million people; but do you really think they envisioned that a single federal congressional bill would be over a thousand pages, that the representatives wouldn't even read the bills, and that the government would grow to be 30% or more of the entire GNP accomodated by hundreds of different federal taxes on both businesses and individuals.

By the way Hamilton's 1st bank was a failure, the second one was too. Who's to say their creation or any federal bank was a good thing. Time zones came about do to convenience with the railroads. Government was a "johnny come lately" and every law has exclusions for localities.. I went without a watch for 20 years.. there was no need for the federal government to pass a law especially when localities can and do opt out, legally and 'illegal' and I have a feeling neither Jefferson nor Madison would be happy with minimum vehicle safety standards.

Of course those examples are all minute and insignificant compared to how far the constitution is currently being bent.

George -- as I wrote in the post, I'm more in the camp of disagreeing than agreeing with this young man. Accordingly -- no -- I do not think McCaskill owes him any apology; if she does, then so does Reagan for using highway funds to force every state to raise its minimum drinking age to 21, so does every Republican who voted for Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid -- or any federal program that doesn't precisely fit the enumerated powers in Article I of the Constitution. In fact, the only point of agreement I have with this young man is the implicit point (buried in his overheated, oversimplified rhetoric) that a restrained central government is a better central government.

All that being said, I don't have to agree with him to appreciate the impact of his presence/presentation; he has some gifts which seem to be rare in people his age, even if the substance of what he suggests is flawed.

JSpencer -- Do you know the source of Madison's counsel that "Theoretical reasoning must be qualified by the lessons of practice"? Love the quote, just want to understand its origin/context. Let me know -- preferably via email: abel-DOT-reply-AT-gmail-DOT-com. Thanks.