Nancy Pelosi’s Perfect Answer to a Perfectly Ridiculous Question

Kathy, that you consider the constitutional question absurd is disturbing, but of a piece with your incomprehension of people's concerns over government power grabs.

To answer your questions: article 1, section 8 authorizes the federal government to raise and support armies, and the air force is pretty clearly within the spirit of an army. See, that wasn't an absurd question at all. Medicare and federal drug laws are not nearly such a slam-dunk.

If conservatives only believe Congress can regulate things that are explicitly mentioned in the actual text of the Constitution, then they should essentially advocate the abolition of the federal government.

What do you mean, "if"? The 10th amendment says exactly that. And the less realistic conservatives do advocate abolition of good chunks of the federal government.

I appreciate the arguments to respect precedent, but you're arguing that because we've overstepped the bounds of the constitution in big ways already, any hesitation in overstepping it further is absurd. You're essentially saying precedent makes it null and void, no?

Dr J points out one of the key concerns of Conservatives and Libertarians - that indeed the Federal Government has routinely exceed its Constitutional authority.

Many of my objections to various government actions, for which here at TMV I have been called heartless, incapable of empathy, and even ruder things, all stem from that basic belief, that the Constitution and 10th Amendment mean what they say concerning limits on the Federal Government, even if they have basically been ignored.

No, Dr J, I am saying that we haven't overstepped the boundaries of the Constitution, as people like you and that CNS reporter claim we have. There is no rational basis for the argument that only what is specifically mentioned in the Constitution can be law. And although I appreciate your honesty in telling me that you do, indeed, believe any federal law that is not mentioned in the Constitution is illegitimate, I am still skeptical about how far you would be willing to take that. Perhaps you do advocate the repeal of all federal laws that refer to something not mentioned in the Constitution: children, public schools, roads and highways, airplanes, drugs, electronic surveillance, foreign aid, preemptive or preventive war, prisons in foreign countries run by the U.S. government, immigration law, federal laws forbidding the sale of alcohol or cigarettes to minors, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (its existence), the CIA (its existence), the Pentagon (its existence), and I could go on and on. None of these things are mentioned in the Constitution.

So no, I am not arguing that because we have stepped over the bounds in big ways already, we should continue to do so. I am saying we have not stepped over any bounds because the Constitution does not establish those bounds (specifically, the bounds implied by the belief that the federal government cannot make any law unless the purpose of the law is specifically mentioned in the Constitution). I am saying that the very premise is absurd, on its face.

Regarding the 10th Amendment, the text says: "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."

What are the powers delegated to the United States? Well, let's just look at the powers given to Congress, since we're talking about legislation. What are the powers of Congress?

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The online constitution helpfully provides a link to the definition of the word "welfare":

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

So it's at least reasonably arguable that requiring citizens to have health care, and health care reform in general, is a part of the general welfare, and thus included in Congress's power to legislate.

AR, your objections then apply to significantly more government actions than just those that call on human empathy or compassion. See my reply to Dr J, above.

Dr J - The Constitution does not explicitly mention an Air Force, and airplanes did not exist at the time the document was drafted. Saying that the Air Force is in the "spirit" of national defense is intellectually indistinct from saying that regulating health insurance, including mandating coverage, is in the "spirit" of interstate commerce and the taxation and spending powers.

Also, your argument about the content of the Tenth Amendment was also explicitly rejected by the Court in McCulloch v Maryland. Under the Articles of Confederation, states retained all powers that were not "expressly" delegated to the national government. The Tenth Amendment eliminated the word "expressly." This language (in addition to the Necessary and Proper Clause) clearly demonstrates that "explicit" enumeration is not required; Congress has implied powers.

But aren't you arguing that the text means what "you" say concerning federal limits? We can all agree on what the document literally says. Interpreting that language is a different concept. Also, the argument that some conservatives have made in this context defies the logic of Court doctrine -- including conservative judicial rulings. I have not read any credible constitutional law scholarship challenging the constitutionality of healthcare reform. CNS is not a credible authority on the Constitution.

The online constitution helpfully provides a link to the definition of the word "welfare"

...which apparently meant something other than "big social program."

In any case, there's plenty of room for debate about what those words mean, and debate is a good thing. Which is to say your answer "this first part of section 8" is dramatically better than Nancy Pelosi's.

But if you're going to interpret "general welfare" as broadly as "anything imaginable that might help some people," what, in your opinion, does the 10th amendment preclude?

Kathy, you are distorting the conservative argument. Of course it is absurd to argue that every law must be specifically mentioned in the constitution. That would mean that every law would have to be a constitutional amendment by definition. That is not what conservatives argue and that is not what the CNS reporter implied. However, each and every law that the federal government makes must fall under one of the enumerated powers granted to the federal government. The question from the reporter is clearly intended to ask for the constitutional clause under which an individual mandate would be covered. He or she clearly was not asking where the phrase "individual mandate to buy health insurance" is in the constitutional. That would be absurd, which why it is absurd for for Pelosi and you to try to imply that is what was intended.

"So it's at least reasonably arguable that requiring citizens to have health care, and health care reform in general, is a part of the general welfare, and thus included in Congress's power to legislate."

Yes, that is a reasonable argument. There is also a reasonable counter-argument. In order to prove something is "not a serious question", you have to do better than to say that there is a "reasonable argument" that the implication of the question is wrong.

Saying that the Air Force is in the "spirit" of national defense is intellectually indistinct from saying that regulating health insurance...is in the "spirit" of interstate commerce

Not a bit of it, your honor. An air force is--and prior to 1947 literally was--an army in faster vehicles. I'd even argue the air force (by one name or another) is indispensable for a modern army to be viable, and the government couldn't provide for the common defense without it.

Health insurance has a much weaker relationship to interstate commerce. We can certainly have interstate commerce, and common defense, and general welfare without a universal health care entitlement program.

Your own dictionary quote said "This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution." But I'll lay it out more directly.

From the Federalist papers #41:
"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 language is a bit outdated, but here's the point in brief: Why would the constitution list the powers of the federal government, unless they were the ONLY powers of the federal government? The "general welfare" phrase was merely an introduction as to why the federal government had these powers. The supreme court approved the New Deal programs, not because they were constitutional, but because the court would have been subjugated by the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. Either that, or they just didn't care. I guess that it doesn't really matter anymore. You can say that the government will do want it wants regardless of the constitution, but you can't say that this, and many other bills of the last 70 years, are within the bounds of the constitution.

But if you're going to interpret "general welfare" as broadly as "anything imaginable that might help some people," what, in your opinion, does the 10th amendment preclude?

The answer is probably nothing, because the Big Government types believe that the Constitution id for the "United State of America" and not the "United States of America", a distinction that the founding fathers intended but that has been transplanted by the unchecked growth of the federal government.

Its was a perfectly reasonable question and a perfectly ridiculous answer.

kathy -

AR, your objections then apply to significantly more government actions than just those that call on human empathy or compassion.

You are absolutely correct on that point.

Honestly, I can empathize a bit with the speaker because I recently witnessed the phenomenon first hand as to how clueless folks seem to be in regard to the Constitution that they spout off so much about. And yes, it's enough to render one speechless. It's like encountering a hobo who out of nowhere asks you to prove that the egg he holds is not God. Normally, you'd think the answer would be obvious. How can you not know this stuff? Didn't we all go over this in grade school? I went to public school in Alabama-- one of the worst in the nation-- and I somehow managed to learn it.

Kathy has alrady brought out Article 1, Section 8 and pointed out all the juicy bits. The preamble was mentioned, though I didn't see the arguement regarding the Ninth Amendment that states that it should not be assumed that people do not have a right to something just because it's not specifically mentioned. (That one for the folks who say health care isn't a Constitutional right.)

Of course, if there's a real issue with it, there's this funny little thing about how the Constitution can be changed and which branch of government might set that in motion, so the question of whether or not it might be there NOW... Well, that's just kind of a silly argument in the first place. Our last amendment was enacted in 1992, so I'd say we're due for another one. It's like someone arguing 100 years ago that women didn't have the constitutional right to vote. Um... You realize we can change that, right? Isn't that kind of the whole point of making laws and amendments in the first place?

As far as folks building on the text with their own interpretation is just that. The Constitution says what it says. How about we start just taking a step back and looking at the actual text without adding or taking away from any of it? (I mean, it's not like this is the BIBLE, and we can just pick and choose the parts we like!)

I mean, we've created a public scenario where a shocking number of people seem to believe that the preamble to the U.S. Constitution states that all men were created equal and that they have the God given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? No joke. That's what had ME so flabbergasted. I actually posed the question recently and had an overwhelming majority state justthat.

SCOTUS decisions are mere interpretation that can be twisted via lawyers. And they frequently get it wrong. (See also: eminent domain.) If SCOTUS always got everything right as according to some on the right seem to believe they do, they wouldn't be fighting tooth and nail to overturn Roe v. Wade.

So, when Pelosi said that the question was not serious, and when Kathy says it is ridiculous, what they mean is that it is obvious that a constitutional amendment is in the works which makes the question irrelevant?

And I fail to see how your point about how clueless some people are about the constitution (which is true) has anything to do with whether the question posed by the CNS reporter is relevant or not.

It would be interesting to read what those who side with Pelosi on this think are the limits of the legislative power of Congress. Clearly there are explicit rights spelled out in the Constitution that are, for the most part, protected (bill of rights, etc.), but do you all think that Congress has legislative authority over everything else?

Personally, I don't think that's what the framers intended, but that is essentially the situation we have today due to creeping normalcy. The states, as political organizations, are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Instead of the Federal government relying on the states, the states now rely on the federal government and the feds are all too happy to use that leverage to compel states to the federal will. I'm not making a judgment here, just explaining the way I see things.

Well said ProfElwood. Madison laid out the argument as well as I've ever read, even in the overly verbose way that was common in his time.

The states, as political organizations, are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

And more and more decisions being made at the federal level means only well-funded national organizations get to influence them. And we don't like that, so we pass desecrations like McCain-Feingold.

If we reinstated the tenth amendment, we wouldn't need to go chipping away at the first.

"The preamble was mentioned, though I didn't see the arguement regarding the Ninth Amendment that states that it should not be assumed that people do not have a right to something just because it's not specifically mentioned. (That one for the folks who say health care isn't a Constitutional right.)"

This is a point where you have to understand the meaning of the words when they were written. You are absolutely right that we have a right to health care, even free health care. But a right, in the original meaning, entails that no one can be coerced when you exercise it. So, your right to health care means that neither the government, nor any other person, can interfere with your attempt to get medical help, nor can you force anyone to give it to you. Your right to free health care would require you to find someone who is willing to give it to you of their own free will.

Oddly enough, I've read that as much as half of all medical care used to be given freely, back when government regulations, and both public and private health insurance, were rare.

Want to make the States more relevant? Pass a Constitutional Amendment preventing federal aid to the States. In one fell swoop you would make the States the viable entities that the Constitution intended. You would cut federal spending by an enormous amount and have it made up for by increased State taxes bringing the power closer to the governed. Additionally, you would have the States in a healthy competition with each other fostering achievement instead of dependence and kow towing to the federal government.

Better yet, repeal the 17th amendment and get the state governments to choose their senators. The original purpose of having senators chosen by the state governments, was so that they would represent the interests of the state governments, in much the same way the representatives would represent the interests of the people. It was supposed to be a safeguard against the "tyranny of the majority".

Agreed the 17th should be repealed.

So I'm confused.... are the Democrats in DC doing too little or too much with their power?

The question from the reporter is clearly intended to ask for the constitutional clause under which an individual mandate would be covered. He or she clearly was not asking where the phrase "individual mandate to buy health insurance" is in the constitutional. That would be absurd, which why it is absurd for for Pelosi and you to try to imply that is what was intended.

And yet, that is precisely what the reporter did, in fact, ask. So you are taking Nancy Pelosi (and me) to task for thinking that this reporter was asking the question that he actually asked?

The general welfare cannot be even adequately served today without health care reform, whatever specific form that takes.

And your argument is a rationalization. Health care reform is not in the Constitution, but general welfare is. The Air Force is not in the Constitution, but the common defense is. There is no meaningful difference.

First of all, did you and Dr. J even bother to read the dictionary definition of the word? Clearly, if you did, you're ignoring it.

Second, the statement about the specific contemporary sense of the word welfare, which was not the meaning in the 18th century, does not at all undercut the force of the dictionary definition. You have to read that second statement closely. All it's saying is that there is a contemporary meaning of the word "welfare" that refers to a specific set of government programs -- as in, "I am on welfare." That meaning did not exist -- OBVIOUSLY -- in the 18th century, but the first meaning did, and that first meaning still exists today.

It's an additional meaning, iow -- not a contradictory one.

Congress has specific POWERS, Andy. Congress has the authority to pass the laws that are necessary and proper to the fulfillment of those powers. RIGHTS are an entirely different part of the Constitution. The issues that the laws address must derive from the powers.

This is not about legal rights; it's about legal powers.

Adelinesdad: You are being too generous. Conservatives have absolutely been going around waving copies of the Constitution at townhall and other meetings demanding that speakers show them specific language in the document that discusses national healthcare. CNS is just an extension of the townhall folks. For people who really care about sound constitutional debate, several scholars have set forth the arguments surrounding the constitutionality of reform -- the latest person being Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean at UC Irvine.

The Constitution does not say that Congress can only regulate things that are essential to commerce. Clearly, the US medical and insurance industry is "in" interstate commerce -- which makes them subject to regulation. And the Framers could not have anticipated either healthcare or airplanes as being connected to either. Your argument places limits on the relationship that do not exist textually or in practice.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

GENERAL (Not Specific) WELFARE, correct?
- And no matter where you get your definition of "welfare", it does NOT mean "prosperity" or "health".
Prosperity is earned and so is health with your choice of lifestyle. If you chose to be lazy - no prosperity. If you chose to live a high-risk lifestyle (smoking, drugs, overeating) - no health. The federal government cannot guarantee those as "rights" in a democracy.

Why do you leftists not understand that? You want me to pay for the poor lifestyle choices of others. Why? People living below the poverty level are already given medical cards. So it cannot be to help the less fortunate among us. You see as "rights" that whhich many of us see as something we have earned.

"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."

Yes, Congress has implied powers. It's how we have the Air Force (et.al) , wouldn't you agree?

However, when Congress just assumes a new role; they just take it as acceptable. They now want to be our health insurance agents - they've already become our banks, and our fallback if our corporation fails. The Supreme Court stands silent. The Executive leads Congress by the nose. Where in the heck is the checks-and-balances? The Constitution did EXPLICITLY say that when Congress doesn't have the power, give it to the states or to the people. That is not being done now. It hasn't for well over 60 years.

Be careful Professor.....

Kathy absolutely refuses to taken into consideration, any writings of the Founding Fathers. Their intent of the Constitution for our people is null and void to her in terms of spirutuality. I contend that is the very reason behind our present situations both spiritually and politically.

Presently, we do not go back to the Founding Fathers to see what their intent was for a myriad of issues. The Federalist Papers in addition to their many writings say explicitly say what they implicitly put in the Constitution. Let me give an example:

John Adams:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

James Madison:
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” - 1778

For the record:

From 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary:

WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.

Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

Alas, that we have to the point where merely asking a member of Congress to point out what part of the Constitution grants them the power to enact a piece of legislation is deemed ridiculous.

A conservative news outlet's daring to ask such a question isn't what is ridiculous. What is ridiculous is that the rest of the media is not and has not been asking these questions for decades.

I grow tired of hearing people use the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to justify the idea that the federal government has the power to intervene whenever it sees fit. It has been used to justify everything from dictating to smaller business owners as to how they are to run their businesses to criminalization of the mere possession of cannabis. Given the overly broad nature with which the interstate commerce clause has been interpreted, it could be used to justify just about anything. One wonders whether people who argue for an elastic interpretation of the Constitution and the interstate commerce clause, see any restrictions, at all, on the powers of the government.

What is this oft-invoked but seldom explained interstate commerce clause? If we turn to the Constitution itself, we see that the phrase "interstate commerce" doesn't even appear in the Constitution. However, it is universally assumed to refer to Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, which states:

[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

The key words within the interstate commerce clause are regulate and among the several states. People seem to have a problem understanding what these words mean. Some people interpret the term regulate to mean that the federal government has the power to control, restrict, or prohibit the sale of goods in any what it sees fit. Afterall, this is what we tend to mean nowadays when we use the term regulate. However, when they wrote the Constitution, the Founding Fathers used the term far more narrowly, in accordance to the definition of the term at the time.

In order to understand what the Founding Fathers meant by "regulate commerce . . . among the several states", one need look no further than The Federalist Papers. Written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Charles Jay in from 1787 to 1788, the purpose of The Federalist Papers was to explain the Constitution to the American people in the hopes that their delegates would ratify it. The text of The Federalist Papers gives a pretty clear explanation of both the reasons the Founding Fathers believed the interstate commerce clause was necessary as well as what kind of powers it gave to the federal government.

In Federalist No. 22, Hamilton explains that the tendency of the individual states to impose nonuniform duties and tariffs on one other during the Articles of Confederation period caused an intense animosity between the individual states and impeded free trade:

The interfering and unneighborly regulations of some States, contrary to the true spirit of the Union, have, in different instances, given just cause of umbrage and complaint to others, and it is to be feared that examples of this nature, if not restrained by a national control, would be multiplied and extended till they became not less serious sources of animosity and discord than injurious impediments to the intercourse between the different parts of the Confederacy . . . Though the genius of the people of this country might never permit this description to be strictly applicable to us, yet we may reasonably expect, from the gradual conflicts of State regulations, that the citizens of each would at length come to be considered and treated by the others in no better light than that of foreigners and aliens.

Moreover, in Federalist No. 42, Madison wrote:

The powers included in the THIRD class are those which provide for the harmony and proper intercourse among the States . . . to regulate commerce among the several States and the Indian tribes . . . A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former.

In other words, the interstate commerce clause was specifically to prohibit the individual states from imposing duties and tariffs on one another. Contrary to popular myth, the purpose of the interstate commerce clause was not to grant the federal government the power to control, restrict, or prohibit the sale of any specific goods between states, but to encourage free trade between the states. Blinded by their bias as to what they personally believe the federal government should have the powers to do, people have overlooked the original intent of the interstate commerce clause and perverted it to mean some very different.

The idea that the interstate commerce clause gives Congress the power to force individuals to purchase health care insurance is absurd--not only because the purchasing of health care insurance need not have anything to do with interstate commerce, but because the interstate commerce clause clearly refers to existing commerce. In a free society, the sale of goods in supposed to be a voluntary transaction involving a willing seller (or sellers) and a willing buyer (or buyers). In the case of health care insurance mandates, Congress is imposing an involuntary transaction. People will be forced to purchase health care insurance under the threat of fine or punishment. This has absolutely nothing to do with the interstate commerce clause and goes well beyond the written or implied powers of the federal government as granted by the Constitution.

The Constitution is not a perfect document. Many of the Founding Fathers, themselves, were less than satisfied with the final draft, as it was a compromise between various factions (north versus south, federalists versus anti-federalists, large states versus small states). However, there is no point to having our congressmen and congresswomen swear an oath to a Constitution which they have no desire to follow. There is absolutely no point in having a Constitution if we're all going to have our own interpretations of what it means. If one doesn't agree with what the Constitution says (and believe me, I have my own disagreements), the honest course of action is to amend the Constitution.

Just consider this. If the country ignores the Constitution and acquiesces to your desire to enlarge the size and scope of the federal government, there may come a day when an ambitious politician with goals less noble than your own attempts to subvert the Constitution and give the federal government even further reaching powers.

"And yet, that is precisely what the reporter did, in fact, ask. "

No, it wasn't. This is what the reporter asked: "“Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”"

Even if there were 2 possible interpretations (your and mine), one is reasonable and the other is absurd. Generally, under such circumstances, we assume the questioner intended the more reasonable meaning, since it is more reasonable. We do this all the time in conversation. We use words that can be mean two different things, and we expect those listening to make reasonable assumptions about what was meant. Language is not always precise.

However, I don't even think we can say that this sentence is vague. The meaning is clear. I hate to have to parse this out for you, but here goes:

You would agree that in order to enact a law, the Congress must draw authority for enacting that law from the constitution. That is NOT the same as as saying that the law must be explicitly mentioned in the constitution. The questioner is asking, "Where specifically does the constitution grant the Congress the authority to enact legislation X?" Not "Where specifically does the constitution mention legisltation X". Furthermore, if the constitution does grant authority for the legislation, there must be at least one specific part of the constitution that could be pointed to as granting that authority. The word "specifically" refers to the desire to find a specific part of the constitution. It does not imply that the constitution must specifically mention health care.

I don't know how to explain it better. The meaning of the sentence is clear. I don't doubt your misunderstanding, Kathy, but as far as Pelosi goes I believe she knows exactly what she is doing: twisting the question to make it seem as absurd as possible because she knows that the constitutional question is a legitimate concern and therefore needs to be marginalized.

"Constitution at townhall and other meetings demanding that speakers show them specific language in the document that discusses national healthcare. "

I'll grant you that there are probably some ignorant people that believe that if national healthcare is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, then it is not constitutional. However, that is the fringe and doesn't disprove that there is a legitimate constitutional concern, and neither does it excuse Pelosi and Kathy from assuming that the questioner intended something that is absurd when the more reasonable interpretation was clearly what was intended (see my previous response to Kathy on that one).

Yes, Kathy, Congress has specific powers and rights serve to limit the scope of those powers. So I ask again, what are the limits to Congressional power? Do they have the legislative power over anything that's not specifically prohibited by the Constitution?

James Madison:
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” - 1778

JeffersonDavis,

I have just spent the last fifteen minutes looking for this alleged quotation on the internet and have not been able to find the original source. If you insert "James Madison" AND "Ten Commandments" in the Google search engine, you will end up with about 35,600 hits, most of track back to either politically conservative websites attributing this quotation to James Madison or to politically liberal websites arguing that there is no evidence that Jame Madison ever spoke or wrote such a thing.

The quotation has been circulated by religious conservative David Barton, who in his 1996 book The Myth of Separation: What is the Correct Relationship Between Church and State?, attributes this quotation to James Madison.

Snopes.com, a politically neutral website, wrote of the quotation:

Actually, this statement appears nowhere in the writing or recorded utterances of James Madison and is completely contradictory to his character as a strong proponent of the separate of church and state.

I see no reason why we should accept without skepticism religious quotations attributed to James Madison by religious conservatives without primary sources when there is an abundance of original documents suggesting a very different story--namely that James Madison had a deep mistrust of mixing politics with religion.

From a letter from James Madison to Edward Livingston in July 10, 1822:

Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt. & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst. And in a Govt. of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

In short, I don't think the best way to combat the general population's ignorance of the Constitution is to repeat unsubstantiated claims made by religious conservatives.

Clearly, the US medical and insurance industry is "in" interstate commerce.

They look more like intrastate commerce to me. Your doctor is local, and licensed by your state. We're far afield from the "settling trade disputes" interpretation nicrivera describes.

You can argue the butterfly effect, that commerce is interlinked and virtually any transaction will have some effect on money passing across state borders. But I find that interpretation way too expansive, as it implies the power to regulate any behavior at all.

Health care reform is not in the Constitution, but general welfare is. The Air Force is not in the Constitution, but the common defense is.

Not just "common defense," though, "the power to raise and support armies." As Jazz points out, that's quite specific.

You didn't answer my question. If you're going to interpret "general welfare" as broadly as you propose, what does the 10th amendment preclude?

Yes, Kathy, Congress has specific powers and rights serve to limit the scope of those powers. So I ask again, what are the limits to Congressional power? Do they have the legislative power over anything that's not specifically prohibited by the Constitution?

Andy, good luck but i dont think your question will get an answer from Kathy or any other liberal..ooops "moderate" !

In fact these liberals and self professed moderates have set themselves up in a trap - if Congress can do anything in the name of "general welfare", why should there even be limits ? After all, it is for the "general welfare", not individual good is it ?

If you can be forced to buy health insurance in the name of general welfare, what more can be shoved down your throat ? Liberals and many moderates say, "Dont worry, but lets depend and trust the benevolence of our Government elected by the people !" In short, majority rules and you just have to suck it up.

Two more observations that i want in addition to the excellent points on the true spirit behind the inter state commerce clause by nicrivera ( Thank you sir !)

A. There is no "inter state commerce" when it comes to purchasing health insurance. People in Iowa cannot by insurance from Illinois - in fact there are two separate risk pools in two neighboring states that are handled by the same health insurer ( Blue Cross)

B. For those people who claim that health insurance is a "right" it sure as hell is absurd to point to "inter state commerce" - why are we talking about commerce here, especially when health care is a "right" ! You could as well argue that the Federal Govt of the United States IS OBLIGED to provide for the "right to health insurance"

Btw, if there is a right to health care, is there a right to eating three meals a day ? And if it exists, why do hundreds of millions of people all over the world go hungry every day ?

Or is this a right that God divined for American people only ? Coming from India, i would be curious to know the answer to this question. Please dont chicken out by saying "thats why we have foodstamps" - if you do, then i would have to re-phrase the question -

Does every American have the right to a foodstamp as needed? And is this some sort of a natural right ?

You didn't answer my question. If you're going to interpret "general welfare" as broadly as you propose, what does the 10th amendment preclude?

Dr.J - i think we should have a thought experiment - if this country were to somehow come to an amicable divorce citing irreconcilable fundamental differences, and liberals and moderates had their country, and conservatives had their own, what would their two new constitutions look like?

Some thing tells me that the liberals will explicitly strike out the Tenth Amendment - after all it has been implicitly over ruled for the last 80 years. And there is no pretense now that this is a diverse country... in fact it is not any more - its liberal, secession has happened and why deal with this ancient racist 17th century good for nothing amendment ?

Also, there would be no Second Amendment - it would be removed or there would be a new Amendment which says that only the Federal Govt can own weapons and no individual rights to firearms exists.

The First Amendment would have an explicit "hate speech" clause.

There would be what FDR called the Second Bill of Rights with explict right to health care, food, retirement packages, and all the "positive rights" liberals typically love to enforce on other people.

The citizens of the United States keeping up this facade of being one country should surely rank among the great wonders of the world.

I've explained the issues elsewhere, on Jazz's thread. As usual, the liberals have it wrong about this subject, as they have before. There is no unlimited grant of power to the federal government to do whatever, and everything, it chooses to do. The legitimate scope of the federal government is limited; extending the intent and approval of what was originally sought in this or that part of the Constitution or in federal law to modern times and to unforeseen things in no way is the same as a general power that may legitimatize anything and everything the federal government might wish to do or liberal kiddies want the federal government to do. (It's no surprise that many falsely use the word "right" for their demand or claim they are currently making on the taxpayers or of federal officials. That's an old, separate argument liberals have always lost.) There is citizenship of the USA as well as of states, since the Civil War, but that in no way justifies the feds' doing anything they wish, or that some wish to have done on their behalf. Even if Constitutional federalism is inverted in practice (routinely since the 1930s, coincidentally with the development of the modern welfare state), that in no way justifies it. Not only do liberals lose the constitutionality and federalist arguments, but they lose the more fundamental argument, which is that the burden of proof, and of justification, always lies on the side of those who wish government to exercise power and authority over people. That anyone has contempt for this reveals their immorality as well as defiance and repudiation of being American.

"Andy, good luck but i dont think your question will get an answer from Kathy or any other liberal..ooops 'moderate' ! "

Not a correct (or necessarily honest or informed) answer, anyway, if history is any guide.

Nagajaran: To use one example, "interstate commerce": That has been one of a number of misused parts of the Constitution to rationalize many things done by, or sought of, the federal government. (Other normal resorts are deliberate misconstruction of the "general welfare" clause in Article 1 Section 8, the "necessary and proper" clause, the "equal protection" clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, incredibly, and of course the biggest resort of losers of arguments nation-wide here, the Preamble.)

The smallest, most trivial item anywhere, that in no way is involved with anything or anybody in any other state, still falls under the "interstate commerce" clause among activists, because they say this refers to "the national economy," which of course, means (notably, to these activists) everything, everywhere.

"Your doctor is local, and licensed by your state."

See what I wrote above, to Nagarajan (spelling!). Liberals re-define "interstate commerce" as "the national economy." I.e., everything and everybody. Scope extended! Wow. It's magic.

The "general welfare" clause is not a broad, unlimited grant of power (much less a grant to the feds to benefit individuals directly and specifically). As to the common desperately-pathetic, low-IQ practice of silly equivocation, no, the "general welfare" clause doesn't justify all "welfare" programs with that word as part of their names, nor anything similar.

The worst of the lot actually relies on the Preamble, which is not law at all, and can't even locate the "general welfare" clause, which is in Article 1 Section 8, not the Preamble. [slackening jaw]

"Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"

We're still waiting. Pelosi and other dishonest people, and others with contempt for the Constitution and for constitutional federalism, as well as honesty and morality, reveal their true, darker selves when they attack such questions. The burden of proof is on those proposing the mandate. Answer the question!

Welfare does mean health by your own definition.

"indeed the Federal Government has routinely exceed its Constitutional authority"

Of course it has. The general situation currently is about 2/3 of what the federal government does should be invalidated, as unconstitutional. That would disrupt the nation and would be politically impossible, and it won't happen, and the trend toward more excess (arising as a systematic phenenomenon since the 1930s, with the development here of the modern welfare state as well as consolidation of federal power, taking advantage of "destruction of distance" from communications and transportation improvements) is part of the culture. That doesn't mean it isn't open to question and criticism, ever.

And the essence here is actually beyond the issue of overgrowth and over-centralization of power in the federal government. The fundamental issue here is with the need to justify the use of authority and power over people, the need to justify coercion of all kinds. The burden of proof of justification always lies with advocates and proponents of use of power over people, and against the use of such power, and against government. That is our historical, normal, authentic libertarian-oriented (truly liberal) American way, and will remain so among real Americans.

To express contempt for it is to express contempt for Americans, the American way, and for America.

"I am saying we have not stepped over any bounds because the Constitution does not establish those bounds"

You are mistaken, Kathy. There are such bounds. It is up to you to explain (prove) why what you want or what is sought lies within those bounds, not outside them.

We have US as well as state citizenship. The concept of citizenship has meaning in the modern welfare state that establishes a direct relationship between the federal government and its citizens, that may be the subject of some laws. We have civil rights laws, for example, that proscribe behavior by citizens that is injurious to other citizens. But note that these are constraints, and otherwise behavior is not the proper object of legislation. There are few positive commands on citizens, other than to pay taxes (and even then, most laws and interventions by the federal government are related to proscribed offenses, such as failure to pay taxes, or evading them). Intervention of any kind, but the greater in scope, the more so, such as anything compulsory or "mandatory," must be justified by proponents of it. That is even more fundamental than the related issue that government is properly viewed as a necessary evil (and no substitute for private individuals and behavior), and should be minimized. The burden of proof of government intervention, in this country, lies on the advocates and proponents of compulsory behavior.

Where is the justification? You must explain not only why the federal government can do this, but even more importantly (and imperatively), why it should.

"So it's at least reasonably arguable that requiring citizens to have health care, and health care reform in general, is a part of the general welfare, and thus included in Congress's power to legislate."

This does not follow from the "general welfare" clause in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

Neither compulsory purchase of insurance (even though it's a prelude to paying tax for federally controlled and provided health care in the future, once the private insurers are replaced) is justified by this clause, nor can one stoop to a very low intellectual plane, as many left-activists do, and say the word "welfare" justifies commonly-known government "welfare programs" or anything else with that name.

Try again, Ma'am.

Jeff Davis and Nic Rivera: The dispelling of the myth that "general welfare" is a grant of broad general powers to the federal government, and the amelioration of concerns of critics of the Constitution on this basis (which was scoffing at how pathetic the argument was), is found here, among the Federalist Papers. (See below.)


Federalist #41 (Madison):

"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!"


Sadly, the Founders didn't understand the "distress," or the extent, or rather the intellectual and moral depths to which modern leftists would descend in attempting to justify seeing their ends met in any way.

Look at the bright side. With all the false arguments the lefties have made over the decades, at least they haven't gone crazy yet with misuse of the word "right" (as in "right to health care," here) to uncork the Ninth Amendment genie (as some of us feared the more fervent ClintonCare advocates and Hillary Clinton herself, in particular, were possibly going to do during the early 1990s).

Professor Elwood:

Many were still suspicious that power would be sought anyway by the feds -- which is why something actually redundant was added, to clearly state this, and make it not an issue (sadly, not true among so many nowadays): the Tenth Amendment.

At least New Dealers like Tugwell were honest that they were inverting it (for the federal government, "what is not prohibited may be undertaken," along with 100% federal supremacy, of course, over those pesky state and other governments) because the Constitution was an encumbrance.

Nowadays, caught in the wrong, lefties are usually more desperate. I've even encountered the deliberate misconstruction of the Tenth Amendment, completely bypassing "the United States" and saying that "the people" is the federal government ("the United States") because the federal government ("the United States") is the agent or representative of the people.

The only basis for such an easily dismissible piece of garbage for an argument is one that is strictly literal, but which exposes their hypocrisy and which is truly delectable. They must be bypassing the scope of the first part of the Tenth Amendment and claiming additional powers because of the extra words in the first part of the Amendment,

"delegated to the United States by the Constitution"

are too limiting(!).


[skewering lefties on a sword]

"Kathy absolutely refuses to taken into consideration, any writings of the Founding Fathers."

Never mind that the scope of what was written and approved may be reasonably (ah, that isn't enough to underpin what lefties want!) be extended to modern times. Never mind that the Constitution has been amended since then, and -- *** AHEM *** -- may be so changed today if lefties can get others to agree to this.

Note that this is selective. Some things are disparaged or dismissed. The Second Amendment, first and foremost, by many activists. But not the First Amendment, that dastardly creation of powdered-wig evil wealthy white male hierarchists-patriarchists. (In fact, the First Amendment is seized on by activists to justify all kinds of inapplicable, offensive misconduct.) Nor anything else that can be creatively used by courts as a political weapon to mean what leftists want it to mean. Much of the Founders' work (or what is said to be it) is, in fact, valued. (So is stuff not done by the Founders, like the Fourteenth Amendment, but this, too, is mishandled...)

Referring (selectively and hypocritically!) to the Founders or other objects improperly doesn't support their position.

DLS,
Thanks for expounding on the general abuse of the US Constitution - this abuse is a real tragedy since your Consitution was the result of the hard work of great intellects, liberty lovers, and ultimately the greatest known experiment in self government.

The animating spirit behind America has been systematically and thorougly perverted by the so called "progressives/liberals/closeted socialists".

As much as I agree with the conservative viewpoint on this issue, i am afraid that this is a losing battle.Since the advent of the New Deal, modern liberalism has been built on coercion and federal mandates - Social Security and Medicare are the two most prominent examples.

Who in their sane and rational mind would ever contribute voluntarily and freely to Ponzi schemes like Social Security and Medicare? And if they are indeed so great, why not let people choose it freely instead of being mandated ?

When I hear that there is a proposal for States to "opt out" of the public option, I wish why this "opt out" principle HAS NEVER EVER BEEN applied to Social Security, Medicare ?

I guess some mandates are "more good" than other mandates.

Honestly and to be fair SB, this thread has really turned into a more partisan discussion of Federal overreach in general. And neither side can claim the high ground on that.

Conservatives (not the Republican Party, mind you) and Libertarians do believe in limited Government, as defined by the Constitution. While the Republican Party gives lip service to the concept, in reality they are almost no better than the Democrats, who are unabashed Federalists, or worse.

The quote does not exist.

In fact, when asked why the Constitution contained no reference to God, Alexander Hamilton replied, "We forgot."

One of the funniest quotes by a Founding Father ever, IMHO.

To be more precise, "general welfare" includes things that benefit the people as a whole, but "specific welfare" benefits one person at a time. General welfare would include defense, which benefits everyone in the country, roads, which benefits all those in the area, and standardized currency, which benefits all who engage in trade (just don't ask me about the Fed). If you have to write a check to one person (other than someone who is working for the government, like a sailor), that's specific welfare, which can be done, constitutionally, only by the states.

Hot Air: Not quite understanding the word mandate
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/24/not-quite...

To be more precise, "general welfare" includes things that benefit the people as a whole

Not having an influenza epidemic like the one of 1918 would generally be considered to be in the "general welfare".

Dr.J - i think we should have a thought experiment - if this country were to somehow come to an amicable divorce citing irreconcilable fundamental differences, and liberals and moderates had their country, and conservatives had their own, what would their two new constitutions look like?

I Imagine that the "Conservative Constitution" would have poll taxes so that only men of property could vote, make military service obligatory, explicitly ban unions, make debtors prison legal, reinstate slavery, and make "Christianity" the state religion.

"Thanks for expounding on the general abuse of the US Constitution - this abuse is a real tragedy since your Consitution was the result of the hard work of great intellects, liberty lovers, and ultimately the greatest known experiment in self government."

Thank you, too. (And I'm sorry I flubbed spelling your name correctly, earlier.) Too many in this country are ignorant of the obvious(!) facts and willingly so, and even when shown they are demonstrably (even laughably or risibly) incorrect, they don't care or are angrily defiant about it (and contempuous of those who know better, and question impropriety, as you can see with Pelosi's example -- though note that it is also a consequence of concentration and corruption by power, and at least some elitism at play in her case).

"i am afraid that this is a losing battle"

I agree. The trend is obvious. (Many Republicans are happy with "Big Government" and with buying votes.) There's a big history of "accomplished fact." At this point I say we just have to be wary here, watch our wallet, prepare always for unfortunately damage control after more damage is done -- "water under the bridge" isn't the end of the story, but just the story to date; the flow and flood-trend continue.

"I wish why this 'opt out' principle HAS NEVER EVER BEEN applied to Social Security, Medicare ?"

Actually, this merits a postscript: I've written before that once we have universal federal health care (we can't afford a guaranted income for everyone, too), at that point, duplication of government program health services, any kind of "private option" (the opt-out you refer to), will be prohibited, of course. To use a word current advocates misuse: The last thing that government universal-participation advocates will tolerate is (real) COMPETITION. (Voila!)

And as for Social Security and Medicare, well, the Trustees have warned people for ages, but the fools insist on not heeding the warnings. The problems will begin as soon as deficits begin in earnest and redeeming the bonds for these programs requires additional new revenues in order not to reduce benefits.

"Agreed the 17th should be repealed."

The Senators should be super-ambassadors, with plenipotentiary powers in Congress over their states.

Modern trends see us changing instead to elect the President directly, for example. (About all we can hope for is that with abolition of the Electoral College we see resolution of the clusiness of the election and the office of the Vice President.)

" didn't see the arguement regarding the Ninth Amendment that states that it should not be assumed that people do not have a right to something just because it's not specifically mentioned"

The Ninth Amendment genie has yet to be uncorked and support bogus claims of federal positive "rights" (benefits, entitlements, claims on the taxpayers or on Someone Else's Money, health care as a "human right" [sic] that should be provided by the federal government, et cetera).

It means there are rights (real rights, liberties) that cannot be presumed not to exist because they are not mentioned, that the federal government is not obliged to respect only those rights that are enumerated (just as it may not be presumed that the federal government has broad, unlimited powers).

That it is subject at any time to being misconstrued to support claims to "rights" [sic] and power of the federal government to provide more entitlements or do intervene to support claims to "rights" [sic] has long been a concern.

Nic,

That quote was made in 1778 in an address to the Virginia Gerneral Assemby. Perhaps you should have spent more than fifteen minutes on the research. Snopes is great to eliminate urban legends about a boy who ate his own foot, or for disproving chain mail assertions that dell will give you a new computer if you send out so many emails. Snopes' ability to provide research in the political or spiritual arena is not, for lack of a better word, dependable.

My main purpose behind listing these quotes was to underscore that we have drifted away from what the Founding Fathers originally intended. Not only have we done this politically, but spiritually as well. We are, indeed, a pluralistic society where religion is whatever you want it to be, but the Founding Fathers knew that our Constitution would not and could not survive without a higher power embraced by all who serve under it - the diest God. You may call Him what you want "God, Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu, etc", but He should remain a part of the national fabric. This is not a religious right wing assertion. It is the same assertion that Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, etc... had.

Let's see how you do with these:

John Quincy Adams:
Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837

Benjamin Franklin:
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787

Alexander Hamilton:
For my own part, I sincerely esteem the Constitution a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." - 1787 after the Constitutional Convention.

Thomas Jefferson:
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” - 1781

Noah Webster:
No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” - 1828

George Washington:
"reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..." - Fairwell Address.

“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.” - 1778




http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

Don Quijote,
Thanks for re-stating liberal paranoia - and yes, thanks much for being so concise and not letting lose another angry leftist rant...the internets is chock full of these anyways

"Welfare does mean health by your own definition".

Yes, MSF, it does. It means GENERAL health, not INDIVIDUAL health. In this context, the government should guarantee clean streams or clean water for all to use, and provide for sewage treatment and clean air, NOT make sure I do not have polyps in my intestine or make sure I have pills to treat a cold.

That is the intrinsic difference between liberals (federalists) and conservatives. You see welfare as an individual right when the Constitution states general right for the populace. The healthcare bill is for individual health, not for health of the populace. Thus it is unconstitutional.

DLS,
The whole idea of the Government providing "competition" is truly the most diabolical thing in the whole narrative for a public option - we are supposed to forget that there are Govt mandates upon mandates on what an insurance policy must look like, who it can and should cover etc..

Increased mandates has only lead for a transfer of costs of conforming to these mandates to the consumers. Not to mention, competition is explicitly prohibited by Government in not allowing insurance companies to provide access across state lines. imagine living in illinois and being told that you can buy a laptop/PC ONLY if the manufacturer happens to be doing business in Ilinois !

And these are the same people talking about competition - positively Orwellian

"The whole idea of the Government providing "competition" is truly the most diabolical thing in the whole narrative for a public option ... these are the same people talking about competition - positively Orwellian"

Oh, nobody with a warm-to-the-touch IQ believes the "competition" that the proponents refer to. There is no such thing (or "keeping the insurers honest" and all the rest of their nonsense). This is merely a new governmental alternative that is presented with the obvious intention and objective of displacing, then later of replacing, the private sector (called "crowd-out" or "crowding out" in this light). "Competition" is a label and handy euphemism for what is actually sought and undertaken, federal government takeover.

Which is why we have no actual conservative party because both are federalist. One side wants to impose its social views on everyone else, which is in no way shape or form liberty, but they focus on economic liberty at least the type they agree to(meaning you can buy and sell what they do not outlaw) but they of course are the party that was founded on federalism, the Republicans. The other party wants to impose its social programs on everyone else and though they have a good deal of respect for social freedoms that is about all they believe in.

Both sides parse words to get the constitution to look like it is on their side when in reality both are no where near what is in the document. Libertarians from my point of view are the only ones with any moral high ground when it comes to our founding documents and that is only until they vote R or D, this includes me, since both trample all over the founding documents.

Corporations should only function in the interest of the public good and when they are no longer needed or become harmful should be dissolved which neither side supports. We should not have a standing army and if we did it would merely be a skeleton crew for maintenance of our physical equipment in the interest of DEFENSE which is not how we have used our military with the exception of Afghanistan and WWII(and only against Japan but an argument could easily be made against Germany since it was Japans partner) which neither side supports. We should have a TINY federal government with states having full rights to do as they wish and the commerce clause has been so bastardized at this point I would guess the founding fathers would prefer it had never been written which again neither side supports. Empire America is a direct assault on our founding documents and neither side nor the ruling class will ever accept that.

I move to the left in direct correlation to inflationary spending in the interest of personal survival(when the dollar is stable and tied to say gold and handed out by banks its yours, when the federal gov creates any entity to print money when ever it chooses in the interest of creating inflation the money is not yours only the paper is which of course is how our system works), short of us finding someone like say Ron Paul that would actually melt the Fed I see little liberty for anyone and both sides just look silly trying to say that they are closer to the founding fathers ideals when in reality they are equally wrong. I am also a gun bunny but the arguments for the second amendment are also word parses so you may wish to consider that when judging word parses but from my point of view welfare=health care just like the second amendment=personal unregulated gun rights for individuals and I actually agree with both because it gives me greater liberty though the reasons for my feeling greater liberty are different.

Let me take on some of the arguments here.

First, the use of the Preamble. Hate to tell you this, but the Preambles, both of the Constitution proper, and the clauses thereof, are going to get you laughed out of court, since they are not binding at all. Hence why every single copyright case challenging something as a useful art or science has come out as upholding the Copyright insofar as it is at least a useful art or science. Same reason that Heller v. DC came out the same way, because the "Well Regulated Militia" clause is preambulatory and carries no weight. So the Preamble is out.

Now let's move to the general welfare and national defense clauses of Art. I, Sect. 8, as well as the Necessary and Proper clause thereof. You can't use those, because you need a program otherwise constitutionally justified to use those clauses. So otherwise, if you want to use those clauses, you need a constitutional program already to use those clauses. The Necessary and Proper clause, as well as the other clauses herein mentioned, merely allow the Congress to enact laws to make effective an already constitutional program.

Then there's the Interstate Commerce Clause. This is the best argument in existence. The argument I would make in court is that because the Congress can keep people from buying insurance interstate, the Government can regulate the industry. So it would allow only regulation of the insurance industry, not a public option.

Finally, there is the Ninth Amendment, which is completely inapposite. We do not protect positive rights, such as a right to healthcare. The Ninth Amendment has never been read to protect positive rights, merely negative rights, that is, Government shall not interfere with this right. The concept of a positive right is that you have a right to something, like healthcare, or a clean environment. A negative right, however, is just the right to be free from government interference with some activity, such as free speech. The Ninth Amendment does not protect you so that the Government will give you a right. No, it just keeps the Government from interfering with a right you have to make your own choices.

So, for that reason, Speaker Pelosi, and the drafters of the healthcare legislation still need to answer the question, because nothing already offered can be used.

Do people really fall for this false analogy equating individual health care and national defense? This is an apples-and-artillery comparison.

The federal government has a Constitutional mandate to provide for the national defense. Therefore, as military technology evolves, so must the military. Thus, Air Force. No "spirit" required.

There is no Constitutional mandate to provide for - much less impose - individual health care insurance for all American citizens (and, by practical necessity therefore, all legal and illegal aliens). There is nothing in the Commerce clause that gives government the authority to mandate the purchase of individual health insurance, either privately or publicly.

Pretending that "implied" powers can be defined as "anything the government can dream up using 'general welfare' as an excuse" is not only intellectually dishonest, but specifically and emphatically rejected by Madison in Federalist 41.

Why do you biblical literalists "take a leak" to use your memorable words, on 95% of the Bible, and only take the remaining 5% literally? How is it that, as a Christian, you can speak so harshly and judgmentally about poverty and sickness? When you can give me an answer to those questions that makes any sense at all, then I will give you a 2,000-word essay on why the physical and mental health and well-being of individual Americans is part of the general welfare of all Americans.

No, it wasn't. This is what the reporter asked: "“Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”"

Okay, AD, let's do a little role-play here. I'll be Nancy Pelosi, you be the CNS reporter. You have asked your question, above; now I answer, realizing of course that you are not asking me to tell you where the literal language is in the Constitution to allow Congress to enact an individual health insurance mandate:

NP: Congress has the authority to enact laws regarding the regulation of interstate commerce. The selling and purchase of health insurance is part of interstate commerce.

How do you respond?

The limits to congressional power are enumerated in the Constitution -- I quoted them above. Again, as we all agree, these are general categories that cover specific laws implied by the categories. If the need for a specific service or action or policy is implied under one of Congress's enumerated powers, Congress has the authority to enact that law.

Awesome, nicrivera.

Yes, armies. Not an Air Force. The Air Force is not "armies," and the Founders certainly did not have airplanes in mind when they referred to "raising armies."

I believe I have answered your question about "general welfare" several times above, to other commenters. Furthermore, your question, in the way you have parsed it, is unanswerable. You cannot give an affirmative answer to a negative question. Certainly, however, public programs and government-subsidized programs that address problems of hunger, homelessness, income loss, et al., are implied by the general welfare clause.

Do you have a link to a cite for that quote, AR?

"paranoia"?
I think not...All you need to do is read the 2008 Texas Republican Party platform...

Does the word THEOCRACY ring a bell?

JeffersonDavis,

I continue to have my doubts regarding the authenticity of the James Madison quote.

You cite as evidence for the quote http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm, a religious conservative's website. On both the page you linked to and on the site's James Madison page, it mentions the quotation, followed by its source: [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]. Yet it does not cite any written document or link to whatever resource was used to verify the authenticity of the quotation.

Perhaps I'm being a wee bit picky on this one. However, it would not be the first time a quotation was falsely attributed to a famous person. People seem to take delight in posting such quotations on political blogs and forwarding them in emails, but as with political soundbytes in general, not a lot of effort is taken to verify that the quotations that they are passing along were correctly atributed.

I find it odd that whenever I want to ascribe political views to any of the Founding Fathers, I am typically able to find credible resources to verify my claim--whether it is the Federalist Papers or documents or letters that have been preserved by the Library on Congress. Yet whenever a religious conservative wants to ascribe religious views to the Founding Fathers, the primary resources to verify the authencity of the quotation is rarely to be found.

The fact that so many of the Founding Fathers uttered quotations mentioned God is hardly surprising, as all of the Founding Fathers professed a belief in God. Yet the efforts by some of today's religious conservatives to tie some of our Founding Fathers to the idea that the United States was founded as a Christian nation or that our laws have their basis in the Bible or the Ten Commandments--this is something I find baffling, particularly when it comes to people like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, whose religious views were quite different than many of today's religious conservatives. Jefferson was a deist whose version of the Bible removed all references to the divinity, miracles, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Franklin and Madison professed some deist sympathies, though to a lesser extent. And Madison's writings make very clear the dangers he saw of mixing politics with religion (as referenced in my earlier post, which cited an original document).

If the need for a specific service or action or policy is implied under one of Congress's enumerated powers, Congress has the authority to enact that law.

In many cases, yes. In all cases, no - otherwise the power of Congress is essentially limitless.

As I mentioned in another thread, there is a dispute between some states and the federal government over marijuana. These states believe Congress does not have the power to prevent them from legalizing it in certain cases. I think a provision that forced, from the federal level, individuals to purchase health insurance from private companies or a public option should and will be challenged as well. In short, I don't think it's the open-and-shut "ridiculous" case that you and Rep. Pelosi seem to think it is. There is a reason there is not a federal auto and homeowner insurance mandate - because such provisions have been viewed as a clear state responsibility.

For similar reasons, the federal government could not force the states to adopt other measures like the 55mph speed limit and the 21 drinking age. They compelled the states to change state law by threatening to withhold federal money, not through fiat. If the federal government and Congress thought they had the authority to mandate those provisions they would not have used extortion to compel states to change state law.

I don't see much difference between these cases and the federal insurance mandate. Congress could go the extortion route (adopt the mandate, states, or no more federal medicare money for you) and that would be constitutional. A federal insurance mandate by fiat, on the other hand, is definitely of questionable constitutionality whether you choose to believe it or not.

What if, for instance, a state wanted to change the mandate as it applied to it's state? Or what if the state nullified the mandate?

Yes, armies. Not an Air Force. The Air Force is not "armies," and the Founders certainly did not have airplanes in mind when they referred to "raising armies."

They didn't have tanks and machine guns or a ton of other stuff in mind either. Unless you think Congressional authority is limited to purchasing muskets, horses and smooth-bore artillery, Congress has the explicit enumerated power to equip and sustain the armed forces including aircraft, tanks and all the rest. That some of this military equipment is sustained and organized in an organization that doesn't have "Army" in the name does not magically make it unconstitutional. The idea that air forces, tanks, machine guns, etc. are only constitutionally legitimate if they are part of an organization with "Army" or "Navy" in the name does not make much sense to me.

"How do you respond?"

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your respectful answer. If I may ask you a few follow up questions:

1) How do you respond to those who would argue that an individual mandate to buy health insurance does not fall into the category of health insurance regulation, but is more accurately a regulation of individual private behavior? Can you give an example of another industry that is regulated at the federal level by forcing the consumer to buy their product?

2) Would you argue that any proposed law is constitutional as long as its stated purpose is to regulate health insurance? If not, what additional requirements must a proposed law meet in order for it to be constitutional, in your opinion?

(In honesty, if I were a reporter, I would probably not ask those questions depending on the setting. I would record her answer and report it, and let the public decide if her answer is sufficient. The questions above would be what I would ask if I, as private citizen, had an individual interview with her.)

The originalist argument is wonderful. I wonder if you'd consider advocating for a complete disbanding of the professional standing army as well?

In honesty, if I were a reporter, I would probably not ask those questions depending on the setting.

Yes, indeed -- and I doubt that the actual CNS reporter would have asked the hypothetical questions you asked, either. I think if Pelosi had responded in the way I hypothetically wrote, and if the reporter had then asked a follow-up question, that question would most likely have been, "Yes, but where is the specific language in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to require Americans to buy health insurance?" Or "Yes, but where does the Constitution say that interstate commerce includes health insurance" or something else similar to those.

No matter how you slice it, dice it, or parse it, AD, the CNS reporter was clearly, plainly, and obviously asking, expecting, and wanting a very literal answer from Pelosi.

A few other points, including some that have either been lost, or are being ignored.

1. According the Federalist paper #41 (quoted twice on this thread), "general welfare" included no power on it's own. To repeat that it does is to dismiss that document, and presumably all other federalist papers.
2. According to Article I, section 8 (also quoted on this thread), there is supposed to be a standing Navy, but not a standing army. If skilled tank drivers are required, then they must be allowed to take the tanks home, put under state militias, put under the Navy, or a constitutional amendment must be passed to allow that standing army.
3. The constitution is not really considered a document of authority by the federal government or the supreme court. Jefferson himself violated it when he established the department of education, and made the Louisiana Purchase. Constitutional law is more of a study in how the constitution has been manipulated rather than what it is supposed to mean.
4. Many conservatives don't care about the constitution either. Just find a Wall Street Journal article on extraordinary rendition or warrant-less wiretapping, go to the comment section, and see how they treat those who argue for the constitution.
5. The current push for the public option is not to create real competition. McCarran-Ferguson is how the government purposely destroyed competition. If they wanted real competition, they would simply repeal it.

Finally, I have to respond to Kathy's comment that Christians (ahem) ignore 95% of the Bible. If you're referring to compassion on the poor, I can quote the statistics that liberals substitute activism for charity, and are much more likely to believe that it's their job to force someone else to help the poor, and much less likely to do the job personally.

So it's not the reporter's question you object to, it's the hypothetical follow-up question that you assume she would have asked?

"No matter how you slice it, dice it, or parse it, AD, the CNS reporter was clearly, plainly, and obviously asking, expecting, and wanting a very literal answer from Pelosi."

As opposed to a figurative answer? Yes, the report expected a literal answer. The answer you gave, although debatable, at least would have been a legitimate answer to a legitimate question. Arguing about what the reporter hypothetically might have asked next seems to be a waste of time to me.

Arguing about what the reporter hypothetically might have asked next seems to be a waste of time to me.

As does arguing about what the reporter "clearly meant" as opposed to what the reporter "clearly said."

As opposed to a figurative answer? Yes, the report expected a literal answer.

No, as opposed to an answer that responds to an implied question. The reporter asked, “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” You contend that this question really means, "Which of Congress's enumerated powers implies the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?" That's not what the reporter asked. It's what you insist the reporter meant. The literal meaning of the reporter's question is the plain, unambiguous meaning of the words he used. And I would further argue that if the reporter had not intended his question to be taken literally -- if, indeed, his actual intended question was implied rather than clearly and plainly stated -- then one would have expected him to make that clear when Pelosi asked him, incredulously, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" At that point, even if he had not intended a literal meaning, he should have realized that Pelosi was taking his question literally. He could have cleared up the confusion in 10 seconds. If he had half a brain, of course. Which is not necessarily a legitimate assumption.

As I said earlier, it seems to me that the meaning of the question is clear. I'm not arguing that the reporter meant something different than what he said. I'm arguing that what he meant and what he said are the same thing, and that is different from what you apparently believe he meant.

And, as I also said before, I can see how you could have interpreted his words in a different way (although in doing so it seems to me it is you who is making assumptions about what he "meant" versus what he "said", not me), but given two interpretations--one of which is reasonable and the other absurd, generally we go with the reasonable one.

It's not clear that it should have been obvious to the reporter how exactly Pelosi was misunderstanding when she responded "Are you serious?". Perhaps Pelosi should have asked her to restate the question if she was unsure of the meaning.

I understand the constitution requires re-authorization of funds to provide for common defense every 2 years in order to guard against potential abuse caused by standing armies, and I understand that the congress does re-authorize funds every two years. I'm admittedly not an expert in the subject, so I would honestly appreciate it if you could fill me in regarding what is unconstitutional about that. From my reading of the federalist papers (specifically number 25) it seems the founding fathers argued that a standing army in peace time is justified:

"If, to obviate this consequence, it should be resolved to extend the prohibition to the RAISING of armies in time of peace, the United States would then exhibit the most extraordinary spectacle which the world has yet seen, that of a nation incapacitated by its Constitution to prepare for defense, before it was actually invaded."

I agree nicrivera. I have little interest in what the founding fathers said except for what is in the constitution and what they have said to explain what was intended in that document. Other than that, I don't care what religious beliefs or other opinions they might have had.

I think you and Kathy are splitting hairs. The reporter's question was both reasonable and clear, and Ms. Pelosi had certainly heard it 100 times previously.

She dismissed it because she has no better answers than Kathy does to these questions. Like Kathy, she probably recognizes no limits to the federal government's power, save certain parts of the bill of rights. But neither will come out and say that because, well, it sounds kind of extremist.

What nonsense. Yes, obviously Pelosi had heard the question 100 times before if not more, and a stupid question asked 100 times is 100 times more annoying than the first time it was asked. The reason I won't come out and say that I recognize no limits to the federal government's power is because I don't hold that view and never have stated or implied that I hold that view.

I certainly hope that in the future you will attempt to get angry about what I've said and not about what I haven't said.

Actually, that's not exactly what I was getting at with that comment, Elwood. I was referring back to a lengthy argument JD and I had in the comments section of another post. I'm sure JD understood the reference.

Let's just review the facts, Kathy. I asked you twice to name something the government may not do, and you didn't. What you did was to point to the totality of article 1, section 8, which--if one swallows your unbounded interpretation of "general welfare"--permits anything at all.

You even claimed the question is impossible to answer. It certainly isn't, and people who believe in constitutional limits would have no trouble coming up with an example or two. It seems clear you're simply not among those people.

Why don't we just get it out in the open: you don't believe there should be limits on what government can do in the name of the public good. It will come as a surprise to none of your readers. Sorry you're the last to know.

Do you have a link to a cite for that quote, AR?

I cannot find a definitive source (busy working on the house), but here is a reference to it:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen

I tend to agree with you on your take of the Reps and Dems - with one exception.
Yes, it was the Republicans that were the Madisonians (federalists). But in today's political realm, the republicans have switched to the Jeffersonian-like approach. In short, today's Republicans are yesterday's democrats, and today's democrats are yesterday's republicans. Other than that, you hit the nail on the head with your view.

I'd love to see a true Jeffersonian win the Presidency. Ain't gonna happen, unless Ron Paul (or someone like him) wins someday. As you pointed out, however, the system we have will keep that from happening.

"Then there's the Interstate Commerce Clause. This is the best argument in existence. The argument I would make in court is that because the Congress can keep people from buying insurance interstate, the Government can regulate the industry. So it would allow only regulation of the insurance industry, not a public option."

Bingo. Give that man a cupie-doll.
Well stated.

"Why do you biblical literalists "take a leak" to use your memorable words, on 95% of the Bible, and only take the remaining 5% literally? "

As I exhaustively told you on another thread, Kathy..... I take the entire Bible as instruction, not 5%. It is you that murder and justify homosexuality through God's Word, not me.

As for your poor attempt at questioning my approach to poverty and sickness, I guarantee that I have more of my time, money, and resources dedicated to helping those less fortunate than myself than you will ever dream about. I put my "Christianity" into action in that respect. I will always help those who cannot HELP THEMSELVES. For those too lazy to attempt to provide for themselves, I have very little pity. As I stated, it is not my duty as an American to provide anything. It is, however, my duty as a Christian to do so.

And you can write a 1,000,000,000 word essay based upon your faulty definition of "general welfare". It won't change the fact that "general welfare" does not mean "individual welfare". You want each individual to be provided for. That's not how the Constitution is supposed to work, Kathy. That's how socialism and communism works.

I agree, from my point of view the Jefferson-like approach has just become dangerous since it has been so de-coupled from the original intent much like communism in theory being benign but Stalins version was far from it though in this case the danger does not come from the state but from the state opening the floodgates for corporations to do as they please which surprise surprise involves them being allowed to loot the middle and lower classes along with our remaining small businesses.

The greatest crime of the 2008 election in my opinion was the marginalization of Ron Paul that was performed by the media at the request of the major parties and their backers. My fear is that another Reagan is waiting in the wings and for those that do not remember history not only was Reagan a federalist(he was a new deal dem that flipped to Rep) he also is what largely brought the country to this point of economic melt down. He ran promising to end the federal reserve and then backed away while in office and then in some moment of monumental hypocrisy he ballooned our national debt which did create momentary great prosperity that has still yet to be paid for while destroying unions. In short I like my federalists to be incrementalists like Obama is currently being but for a Jeffersonian if they are not extremist like Ron Paul I do not trust them to do anything but make this even worse. I have a hope that the Ron Paul types will pull back in 2012 and allow a mainstream candidate to lose opening the path to a true Ron Paul type in 2016 as the Republican party tries to re-image but by the way the lay of the land currently looks my guess is that the tea parties will get a candidate in 2012 that will be Barry Goldwater II and lose just as handily so that the Republican party can again blame its loss on the libertarians and ignore them for another 50 years or so. If the tea partiers "win" and also win in 2012 by some miracle mark my words he will be much more like Reagan than Ron Paul and our nation will be in a world of shit. Then again I also think the same thing about the Dems winning in 2016 though since I fear they will not be incrementalists.

"I continue to have my doubts regarding the authenticity of the James Madison quote".

Try the Library of Congress. You DO trust that reference I presume.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html

And when you're done there.... Here's an even better one from Madison that is more in keeping with the subject of this thread:

"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."
- James Madison Speech, House of Representatives, during the debate "On the Memorial of the Relief Committee of Baltimore, for the Relief of St. Domingo Refugees"

I was thinking about your assertion about the Air Force and it's Constitutionality. I agree with both sides on this one. The Navy and Army have "departments", and both are authorized explicitly in the Constitution. The Air Force was perfectly Constitutional when it was merely the Army Air Corps. Once they gave it "Department" status, they probably should have amended the Constitution to provide it. The same could be said for the Department of Homeland Security.

General welfare or defense should never be guess upon. If it is not in there explicitly, add it through amendment. The Federal Government is supposed to be extremely limited as James Madison stated:
"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
Speech, House of Representatives, during the debate "On the Memorial of the Relief Committee of Baltimore, for the Relief of St. Domingo Refugees.

I referenced that before, but it applied here as well.

I looked over the Library of Congress page that you linked to. It shows that a number of the Founding Fathers were supportive of religion. Some, such as Patrick Henry, even supported a bill in the Virginia General Assembly that would have levied a tax for the support of religion. However, it also shows that it was none other than James Madison who led the effort to defeat the bill, which is in accordance with the point that I have been making--that James Madison was critical of mixing religion with politics.

And again, the ten commandments quote attributed to Madison cannot be found anywhere on that page. My best guess is that the quotation was misattributed to him. Perhaps it was said by another Founding Father. But given Madison's strong criticism of mixing religion with politics, I don't think it was very likely that he would have said such a thing. I can't know for certain.

I'm not really sure what being religious or having religious sympathies has to do with understanding the Constitution. I have came across Libertarians who are agnostic or atheist and I have come across Libertarians who are religious, and all of them, regardless of their religious views, seemed to understand and respect the Constitution and the idea of limited government.

On the other hand, I have come across religious people and non-religious people alike who seemed not to understand or respect the Constitution.

In other words, it has been my experience that being religious or being sympathetic to religion is not a good marker as to whether someone understands and respects the Constitution and limited government.

The originalist argument is wonderful. I wonder if you'd consider advocating for a complete disbanding of the professional standing army as well?

No, I do not support a complete disbanding of the professional standing army. However, I do support bringing most of our soldiers home--not only from Iraq and Afghanistan but from the military bases in more than a hundred countries around the world. I don't believe that nation-building or policing the world are endeavors that are consistent with the Constitution or the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

Hey Nic.

I agree wholeheartedly with you about the bringing our troops home. Although I support the war on terrorism in theory, we cannot defeat an ideology no matter how long we stay. You are correct that the Founding Fathers did not intend that sort of empire building foreign policy.

And I thought the LOC link I gave you had the statement. I'll look again. It may have been misattributed, but many of Madisons other comments are readily available as noted in my original post with the quotes.

The main purpose for those quotes, was not to inject religion. I, too, do not support government funded or government mandated religion. The Deiest philosophy was that the Constitution had "God" at it's very core, and would not reign correctly, nor could not last without it. The revisionist approach has been to remove God entirely from all facets of government existence - goiing against the Founding Fathers' intent.

This is exactly the same as what is being done in terms of Constitutionality of healthcare and every other federal program that benefits individuals and special interest groups. Both GOP and DNC are guilty of this practice. Both are crapping on the intent of the Constitution. And as within most law, intent is read into much of it. It is just is ignored today by Congress.

This has been a fascinating debate, and I appreciate the tenor and respect most participants show toward one another. It’s why I enjoy reading the comments here as opposed to other sites whose members hurl insults and such.

I have but one comment. I fundamentally have issues with the expansive view of originalism some people use. The only form of originalism I find truly credible is textualism, while the use of auxiliary sources like the Federalist Papers, letter, and such have long troubled me. Granted, the Federalist Papers were drafted by three brilliant men who had great insight into why and how Constitution was drafted. But alas, it is only three interpretations amongst many. As you all know, the ratification process involved the decisions of about 1700 men, 1650 state legislators and the 55 members of the Constitutional delegation. So the question: is whose opinion or set of opinions constitute the definitive interpretation of the Constitution? I don’t think that question is answerable which in effect makes the question of original intent unanswerable. The opinions of state legislators were just as important as the delegates (that's essentially why we ended up with the Bill of Rights, to pacify anti-Federalists in the Mid-Atlantic states). But the fact that the state legislatures ratified the Constitution does not mean that they held the same interpretation of the text as Madison, et al. In fact, they held a wide variety of views which caused the Framers to draft several elements of the Constitution vaguely to allow for interpretive flexibility in the text and thus attract more votes---the Constitution was an exercise in compromise. The same logic applies to most legislation today.

Don’t get me wrong, I have great respect for Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. I’ve read their works many times over. And I believe the endeavor to interpret the Constitution as it was intended a noble cause. But while there are surely textual specifics that are explicit and must be adhered to, once it starts to get blurry, finding original intent is, in my humble opinion, a fool’s errand.

K -- patently absurd description of the general welfare clause. As James Madison wrote, "With respect to the two 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."

Got it?

That's Madison, mind you, not the egregious Statists who have already bankrupted the country by destroying the firewalls of the Constitution.

I asked you twice to name something the government may not do, and you couldn't.

And I named several things the government may not do, probably half a dozen times, but heck, who's counting? I'll name them again.

1. The government may not arrest persons at will and detain them without informing them of the charges against them, without access to an attorney, without legal due process, indefinitely.

2. The government may not establish secret prison sites, inside or outside of the United States' borders, and disappear persons into those sites, with no accountability.

3. The government may not employ torture against any person under any circumstances whatsoever.

4. The government may not intercept and/or read the e-mails and phone calls of U.S. citizens without a search warrant obtained upon the presenting of probable cause.

5. The government may not monitor the activities of peacefully dissenting political groups and organizations, such as anti-war organizations, without a search warrant that would not be given unless there was probable cause of violent, illegal, or otherwise dangerous activity.

6. The government may not create small, enclosed spaces within which political dissent can be expressed, and outside of which political dissent is subject to arrest and detention.

I can give you some more examples. Would you like me to?

"With respect to the two 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."

Doug,

Cite? I think you've put quote marks around someone else's, at best, paraphrase. That does not sound like 18th century writing style to me.

As I stated, it is not my duty as an American to provide anything. It is, however, my duty as a Christian to do so.

Jesus would not have understood that distinction, but he lived in very different times. You are entitled to your absolute unquestioned certainties as I am entitled to my examined understandings, beliefs, and values. I am never going to convince you that there is no black or white in human existence, only shades of gray; and you are never going to convince me that the Bible is to be taken as literal instruction from the man in the clouds rather than as inspired wisdom expressed in the language of metaphor, allusion, and paradox.

That's okay. (It has to be okay, since it's the way it is.) But having said that, I worry about the uneasy relationship between pluralistic, liberal democracy and absolute religious and political certainty. I cannot eliminate the dangers, but I will continue to pay close attention to them.

______________

"Spare Me the sound of your hymns,
and let Me not hear the music of your lutes,
But let justice well up like water,
Righteousness like an unfailing stream." -- Amos 5:23-24

Kathy an FYI:

Ed Morrissey has resonded to you.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/24/not-quite...

Doesn't seen impressed by your position.

1. wrong, as long as you are talking about non-US citizens outside the US who are declared spies (or all they have to do is suspend habeas corpus. Ask Lincoln)
2. wrong. Actually legal if outside the US borders
3. correct. of course, the Devil is in the details of what constitutes torture
4. wrong. Both Congress and the Supreme Court have weighed in on that one
5. wrong. The government can indeed monitor ANYONE if they so desire. What they cannot do is search and seizure, etc.
6. I, too, think it should be wrong, but again the courts and SCOTUS have said otherwise.

You seem to confuse your desires with the reality of the law. A common trait of Liberals in general, I might add. :)

Leonidas,

You are *extremely* late with this news. Jazz wrote a post about it yesterday.

AR,

1. First of all, it is a violation of the Fifth Amendment to deny ANY person of due process. Read the Fifth Amendment. It says "persons" NOT citizens. Second, you are wrong even under your own definition. Jose Padilla is a U.S. citizen, and there have been other U.S. citizens detained without due process as well.

2. Really. Show me where it says that in the Constitution. Show me where in the Constitution it says that it's okay for the government to set up secret prisons and disappear people into them indefinitely with no due process. Show me where it says that, AR.

3. I think we all know by now that what was done to prisoners under the CIA interrogation program was torture. We've all seen the graphic descriptions. As you have said to me on several occasions, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it's probably a duck.

4. Technically correct, since Congress passed legislation making Pres. Bush's illegal warrantless surveillance program legal, after the program had been operational, in violation of FISA, for years. If that's what constitutional means to you, there should be no issue of constitutionality at all with programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Aid to Families With Dependent Children, etc.

5. You are wrong, AR. The government does not have the legal right to spy on peacefully dissenting groups unless it has reason to believe there is specific illegal activity going on -- and no, just opposing government policies does not constitute reason to believe there might be illegal activity. The ACLU filed a lawsuit in Maryland about a year and a half ago to compel the state police to release records of surveillance activities on such groups, and is engaged in several other ongoing legal battles with the government concerning government surveillance of mosques, antiwar groups, etc.

6. It is wrong. There is no such thing as specified "zones" in this country where free speech can take place. The entire country is a free speech zone.

My "desires" have nothing to do with this subject. My strong interest in and support for the rule of law in general and the U.S. Constitution in particular is what's relevant here. As frustrating and ultimately pointless as it is to get into an "It's you, no it's you, no it's YOU" thing, I feel compelled to point out that it's the right that seems to have problems distinguishing between what they believe should be unconstitutional and what actually is. To argue on the one hand that health care reform, or specifically a mandate to purchase health insurance, is unconstitutional; and on the other to insist that it's perfectly legal for the government to kidnap people off the streets or passing through an airport on their way home with absolutely no need to show cause or suspicion of anything, and hold and interrogate them, using torture, basically forever if desired; does not conform to any understanding I have ever had of respect for the reality of the law. And that really IS the right's operating method these days. Interpret the Constitution narrowly on so-called "liberal" issues; interpret the Constitution expansively on issues dear to conservatives. The cynical opportunism of conservative/Republican judicial and legal philosophy is really quite astounding.

"The cynical opportunism of conservative/Republican judicial and legal philosophy is really quite astounding."

Not to mention fiscal philosophy.

1. Not according the rulings so far.
2. Show me where it says they cannot
3. you agreed with me
4. you agreed with me
5. you didn't say spy - you said monitor. very different words. say what you mean. if what you said was true, then traffic cameras would be unconstitutional
6. you agreed with me

So, you agree with me on 50%, and are wrong on the other 50%.

Show me where it says they cannot.

Oh my god, that's perfect. You just totally confirmed what I said about conservatives' cynical opportunism about interpreting the Constitution.

Show me where it says they cannot mandate the purchase of health insurance, AD.

This really is funny. I used the same standard for health insurance mandates and disappearing people into secret prisons -- namely, where in the Constitution is that authorized? -- and you used exactly the opposite standard for each one: Where in the Constitution is that authorized? for a health insurance mandate, and Show me where the Constitution says you can't? for the secret prisons.

It's just perfect.

you agreed with me.

No, I did not.

you agreed with me.

No, I did not.

You didn't say spy - you said monitor

You are not serious. This doesn't even pass the laugh test.

Spy: 1. To observe secretly with hostile intent.
2. To discover by close observation.
3. To catch sight of: spied the ship on the horizon.
4. To investigate intensively.
v.intr.
1. To engage in espionage.
2. To seek or observe something secretly and closely.
3. To make a careful investigation: spying into other people's activities.

monitor:

1. To check the quality or content of (an electronic audio or visual signal) by means of a receiver.
2. To check by means of an electronic receiver for significant content, such as military, political, or illegal activity: monitor a suspected criminal's phone conversations.
3. To keep track of systematically with a view to collecting information: monitor the bear population of a national park; monitored the political views of the people.
4. To test or sample, especially on a regular or ongoing basis: monitored the city's drinking water for impurities.
5. To keep close watch over; supervise: monitor an examination.
6. To direct.

I'm done with you in this discussion. I didn't realize I was arguing with a six-year-old.

You said "Jesus would not have understood that distinction".

Since you don't take anything Christ said in the Bible as fact, can you support that statement? Were you privy to His therapy sessions? Did it come to you in a dream? Did you pull that out of your hat?

Secondly, James Madison stated "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." I guess he, too, was a nutcase. Or did you sit in on his therapy session as well?

Do you not see my point in that? Our government, which serves the people, is not supposed to serve the PERSON - nor the corporation, party, PAC, or special interest group for that matter.

And as far as your quote, did you not read two verses beyond that?
"But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves. " After which, God would not hear your hymns, receive your worship, or validate your sacrifices.

Sounds like the liberal movement, only the Moloch is science, and Chiun is humanism.

When Kathy's arguments dry up or don't hold water, she gets "done with you on this subject".

JD - I know. I really shouldn't be so hard on her; she is just such an annoying shrill. Her personal life is obviously a shambles from comments she has made (and I really do feel for the struggles she has and is going through), and all she seems to have is pretending she is a famous commentator making a difference, speaking 'truth to power' in that hyper-liberal self-righteous manner.

I know I go overboard on her at times, and when I do I try to dial it back for a bit and be nice. But then she goes off and makes some other completely asinine post (usually anti-American), and I cannot help myself.

You said "Jesus would not have understood that distinction". Since you don't take anything Christ said in the Bible as fact, can you support that statement?

It has nothing to do with what Jesus said in the Bible. It has to do with the period of time he lived in.

Secondly, James Madison stated "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

That's nice, but we haven't been discussing charity. We've been discussing public policy.

Our government, which serves the people, is not supposed to serve the PERSON - nor the corporation, party, PAC, or special interest group for that matter.

One, social welfare programs serve the entire society, not just the individual person.

Two, government in this country has served business interests for most of its existence. Over the past 30 years or so, the relationship between private corporate interests and what we still refer to as the public sector (government, i.e.) has become so close as to be all but indistinguishable. The nexus between government -- our elected officials -- and the military-industrial complex (a term Eisenhower first used, in his presidential farewell address) is a huge threat to democracy. So if that's what worries you, you should be looking at things like Dick Cheney setting energy policy behind closed doors with companies like Enron, or at the influence that defense contractors have on decisions of war, the military, weapons procurement, budget issues, etc., or the hold that the private insurance industry has on the setting of health care policy. Telling me you're concerned about the influence of private corporate and special interests on government and obsessing about social welfare programs is crazy, in my view.

And as far as your quote, did you not read two verses beyond that?
"But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves. " After which, God would not hear your hymns, receive your worship, or validate your sacrifices.

My JPS translation reads:

"Did you offer sacrifice and oblation to Me,
those forty years in the wilderness,
O Israel!

And you shall carry off your "king"--
Sikkuth and Kiyyun,
The images you have made for yourselves,
of your astral deity--
as I drive you into exile beyond Damascus--
said the Lord, whose name is God of Hosts.

The space between the two sets of verses is in my edition, as are the quotes around king. And I don't follow your logic: How do these lines negate or contradict what went before?

Sounds like the liberal movement, only the Moloch is science, and Chiun is humanism.

And that sounds like fanatical religious extremism to me.

When Kathy's arguments dry up or don't hold water, she gets "done with you on this subject".

In your case, after 1,146 comments. That should be done enough for anyone.

Whenever I have shared something personal about my life, I have done it in a context that leads me to believe my experiences might be helpful to others -- if only to let them know they're not alone. Obviously, there is always the possibility when one does reveal such personal experiences that some person or persons (usually a small number) will use them in unkind and distorting ways in moments of anger. Most people, as I said, will not do this, even in anger. It's a line, you know, that most people, in my experience, won't cross. That you have crossed that line says so much more about you than it does about me.

You, too, have shared some personal information about yourself that I could now use to discredit your arguments and put you down as an individual. But I won't. Ever.

Wow, well into triple digits as of today.

And so far, the routine list of bad arguments dredged to support all kinds of federal encroachment into state and local affairs remails demolished, as we left them days earlier.

We're still waiting for Pelosi or anyone on here to answer the question she was asked, that she failed to answer.

Kathy, YOU are the one that questioned my lack of charity and Christianity when it comes to helping others (aka, CHARITY).

"One, social welfare programs serve the entire society, not just the individual person."
Ok. Then how do I get to PERSONALLY and equally benefit from that same welfare program? Where's MY check? Where are MY free medicine and drugs? Where are they, Kathy? A welfare program that targets only certain groups in America is unconstitutional! You must serve all equally - no matter how squishy and compassionate the purpose is. It's the same as with the justice system in America. People with fame get off, people that aren't go to jail. Is that fair? No. Equal justice, equal welfare, equal everything.

And I agree that business interests have been served for so long in this country. That is why I, like you, am against government serving those interests as well. It's just as wrong as serving only the poor, or only the Christians, or only the whites, or only the men. True equality demands that we kick em all to the curb and serve the collective people, not individuals or commercial interests.


(About the Bible verse..... I did not say that my quote negated yours. It appeared that you were telling me that you didn't want to hear MY hymns (e.g.)... I merely used the passage after it to get a zinger in on liberalism.

And as I've always said. I love ya, Kathy. You're mostly wrong, but I still love ya.

I was not trying to be unkind - really I was not. I do indeed feel for you.

Perhaps I should have used different phrasing for the comment about pretending she is a famous commentator. That indeed comes off much worse than I intended. Or perhaps not, and I am too mean-spirited at times.

While I do not care for your politics (duh), I do actually like you as a person. You stand up for what you believe in (however wrong! :-) ), stick to your guns, etc. You have been through a lot in your personal life from what you shared, and seem to be still going through some rough times. Yet you carry on. That shows a depth of character.

Anyway, I do feel bad when I get too personal towards you, and will try to keep it to comments (even if strong) about your politics, not your person.

Sorry to be so late in replaying. The Federalist numbers 25-29 deal with the problem of the standing army. It is not the existence of our current army that is the problem, but the scope of it. The standing army foreseen by Hamilton would be only large enough to deal with insurrection or invasion until the militia could be called up and nationalized.

So I'll admit that I overstated the case. However, the army, as it now exists, was never envisioned. Nor was the President's use of the military in absence of a declared war.

"The standing army foreseen by Hamilton would be only large enough to deal with insurrection or invasion until the militia could be called up and nationalized. "

I don't see anything in the papers that supports that (in fact it seems to oppose that point of view by saying that a professional army is necessary to fight wars), but maybe Hamilton said that in some other place. But like I said before, the only thing that matters is what the founders said directly explaining what was intended by the constitution. If Hamilton had those views about the military then those are his views, but I don't see them shedding any light on the intention of the constitution which is pretty clear as far as authorizing a standing, peace-time military.

"Nor was the President's use of the military in absence of a declared war."

I agree. It seems clear to me that when the founders gave congress the power to declare war, the intention was that war should not be engaged in, at least at any large scale, until after war is declared. It's not stated that specifically in the constitution, but if that was not the intent that that makes the power to declare war meaningless, just as the broad interpretation of the "general welfare" clause makes the enumerated powers meaningless. So, I agree with you there. But that seems to me to more of an issue of how the branches of government use/abuse their power, rather than a question of the constitutionality of the military itself.