What part of the constitution authorizes the federal gov’t to take our money and give it to foreign countries?
What part of the constitution authorizes the federal gov’t to take our money to protect other countries?
To lay and collect taxes top provide for the common defense, Article I, Section 8. Couple that with the Treaty Clause.
You might disagree that foreign aid doesn’t help out our “common defense”, but that is a political question, not a legal one. And common sense dictates you don’t want a judiciary acting as a de facto hall monitor on the executive branch’s foreign policy decisions.
If you think foreign aid is bad, put on your good suit, run for office, and convince your elected colleagues to change the law. But it isn’t “unconstitutional”.
[/quote]
Well they I guess the politicians are right…welfare and any other domestic spending is constitutional under the general welfare clause?
Your argument that the constitution be interpreted literally, with no regard to context or intent, is what gov’t has used to grow to the size it has. Also, the constitution is meant to limit power. If the common defense or general welfare clauses justify spending billions of dollars on any and every imaginable domestic program or foreign boondoggle, why set out limitations at all?
I am little surprised you are making this arguement.
If you think foreign aid is bad, put on your good suit, run for office, and convince your elected colleagues to change the law. But it isn’t “unconstitutional”.
[/quote]
The constitution is also supposed to protect against this. The reason we are (by design) a republic, not a democracy.
The people who are a danger to us will view the hypocritical, convictionless, blasphemous Barack Obama with almost as much rabid disdain as they view the so called moderate peace loving Muslims who may like this speech, but were never a threat anyway.
In other words long on meaningless bookworm-isms and zero actual results and yes I saw it.
Here’s the summary:
“We’ve all been good and bad together and if we all could just be better the world would be a groovy place to live”
Your argument that the constitution be interpreted literally, with no regard to context or intent, is what gov’t has used to grow to the size it has. [/quote]
Let me get this right - a literal interpretation of the Constitution is what has caused the government to grow to the size that it has?
Damn those strict constructionists and originalists - they’ve given us socialism! Now, I have seen it all. Ludicrous.
And your point about “context” is telling - you aren’t interested in bona fide historical context, else you’d know better about the scope of foreign policy power - you want a judge to impose a “context” that accomplishes your political desires under the guise of “the law”, no different than the most ardent Left-wing judicial activist who wants a court to reinvent the Constitution to find “rights” that are “progressive”.
And grant it. The Constitution is both a grant of power and a catalog of limitations on power.
You erroneously conflate the two - the General Welfare Clause isn’t specific, and acts as a qualiftying statement to tax on behalf of other enumerated powers.
You shouldn’t be. I have no interest in indulging “liburrtarian” revisionism on the nature of the Constitution, and just because these folks don’t like the powers the federal government doesn’t mean the powers don’t exist.
The constitution is also supposed to protect against this. The reason we are (by design) a republic, not a democracy.[/quote]
This is a throwaway line, as it doesn’t address anything I have said. You running for office and changing people’s minds on policy is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind - which is why Article I is the most detailed and prescriptive section of the Constitution. That’s as “republican” as it comes.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Let me get this right - a literal interpretation of the Constitution is what has caused the government to grow to the size that it has?
Damn those strict constructionists and originalists - they’ve given us socialism! Now, I have seen it all. Ludicrous.
[/quote]
Umm…I think you are confused. Originalist don’t depend on the literal meaning of the words that make up the constitution. They use evidense of original intent as their “context”. If you simply read the term general welfare, you could read that to mean anything.
If you had even a vague sense of what the original framers, or more importantly those that ratified it, indended to accomplish with the constitution, I would be ovious that that term has been interpreted a bit too litteraly.
Again, interpreting common defense and right to levy taxes to mean taking money from the citizens of several states’ money and doling it out foreign nations, is insane.
Do you honestly believe this would have passed the mustard 200 years ago? How about hundreds of military bases in a hundred or so countries?
You honestly believe this is justified under “common defense”?
A thought on why originalism is problematic – eventually, when you’re trying to determine the “original intent” of the framers 200 years ago, you wind up relying on the norms and politics of 200 years ago.
For example: I recall an opinion written by Scalia on the constitutionality of some law regarding corporal punishment of children, and it was essentially a historical argument, if I remember correctly. The framers could not have intended the constitution in a way that considers corporal punishment cruel and unusual, because beating disobedient children was common in that time.
There are also opinions written on 2nd amendment issues that are essentially historical. A great deal of space is used detailing how common gun use was among the general population.
This makes sense, if you look at it a certain way – “The framers must have meant to grant an individual right to bear arms, because individuals did bear arms all the time and considered it their right.” But then what’s undeniable is that the meaning of the law in the 21st century depends on the typical social practices of the 18th.
If you use historical context to determine original intent, you interpret the words of the Constitution in light of the prevalent political and social views of 1789. It’s hard to do that without the implication that the political and social views of 1789 ought to hold today.
George Washington wouldn’t have wanted hundreds of military bases scattered around the world. His contemporaries couldn’t have imagined it. Common defense, to them, did not mean that.
But once you insist that “common defense” today means what it did in 1789, and “general welfare” means what it did in 1789, and “cruel and unusual” means what it did in 1789, then you’re insisting that mores and political norms and social expectations cannot change. You’re now making a political, not a legal, statement.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
A thought on why originalism is problematic – eventually, when you’re trying to determine the “original intent” of the framers 200 years ago, you wind up relying on the norms and politics of 200 years ago.
For example: I recall an opinion written by Scalia on the constitutionality of some law regarding corporal punishment of children, and it was essentially a historical argument, if I remember correctly. The framers could not have intended the constitution in a way that considers corporal punishment cruel and unusual, because beating disobedient children was common in that time.
There are also opinions written on 2nd amendment issues that are essentially historical. A great deal of space is used detailing how common gun use was among the general population. This makes sense, if you look at it a certain way – “The framers must have meant to grant an individual right to bear arms, because individuals did bear arms all the time and considered it their right.” But then what’s undeniable is that the meaning of the law in the 21st century depends on the typical social practices of the 18th.
If you use historical context to determine original intent, you interpret the words of the Constitution in light of the prevalent political and social views of 1789. It’s hard to do that without the implication that the political and social views of 1789 ought to hold today. George Washington wouldn’t have wanted hundreds of military bases scattered around the world. His contemporaries couldn’t have imagined it. Common defense, to them, did not mean that.
But once you insist that “common defense” today means what it did in 1789, and “general welfare” means what it did in 1789, and “cruel and unusual” means what it did in 1789, then you’re insisting that mores and political norms and social expectations cannot change. You’re now making a political, not a legal, statement.[/quote]
This is precisely why they laid out very specific steps to ammend the constitution. If it has not been ammended to fit modern societal norms, it still means what it did when it was ratified.
AlisaV scoring major points in my estimation of her savvy.
I like your point about the speech, and I essentially agree, but with a somewhat more cynical shade because I’m a bastard. I think Tbolt hits it about right.
What did you say your major was again? Political science/pre law?
Umm…I think you are confused. Originalist don’t depend on the literal meaning of the words that make up the constitution. They use evidense of original intent as their “context”. If you simply read the term general welfare, you could read that to mean anything. [/quote]
No, originalists use “original intent” when the words don’t supply specific answers to general applications. “Original intent” does provide context - I never said any different.
The problem is you have no concept of the original “context” - and you want to shoehorn your political preferences into the law by labeling them qualifying “contexts”.
Actually, if you had any sense of the history beyond the Ron Paul Starter Kit, you’d know that the debate over the General Welfare Clause actually took place prior to the ratification of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers, with Madison and Hamilton offering slightly different versions of what the phrase was intended to mean. There never was a consensus, and the Clause remains subject to the debate those Framers started.
Moreover, you have drifted away from your original point about the “common defense”, which is a separate issue because foreign policy decisions are largely determined by an altogether different, co-equal branch of government - the Executive Branch. Congress has the ability to fund these decisions, but has little ability to decide what constitutes smart “common defense”.
And, “common defense” raises a host of practical problems - it is impossible for a judiciary to police decisions about defending the nation. Most importantly, the Founders had exactly no intention of a judiciary doing so.
[quote]Again, interpreting common defense and right to levy taxes to mean taking money from the citizens of several states’ money and doling it out foreign nations, is insane.
Do you honestly believe this would have passed the mustard 200 years ago? How about hundreds of military bases in a hundred or so countries? [/quote]
Give me a break. Washington’s line about avoiding “entangling alliances” not only was good, general advice, but he was specifically warning about the desires of some persons in government to prodive aid to the French Revolution. The idea of aiding other countries - for whatever reason - has been around since before the birth of the country.
Whether it is good policy or bad is not the question - the question is: is it illegal to do so, which is what you mean when you say it is unconstitutional. And it might be the worst policy in the history of the country - but that isn’t that same as illegal.
Legally? Or politically? Yes, to the first. Somewhat, to the second - I don’t much like the idea of foreign aid, and would like to see it circumscribed quite a bit.
George Washington wouldn’t have wanted hundreds of military bases scattered around the world. His contemporaries couldn’t have imagined it. Common defense, to them, did not mean that.[/quote]
A good point, further illustrated by the absurd conclusion that because the Founders certainly did not envision using squadrons of jet fighter-bombers in the defense of the country, the Air Force must therefore be “unconstitutional”.
Umm…I think you are confused. Originalist don’t depend on the literal meaning of the words that make up the constitution. They use evidense of original intent as their “context”. If you simply read the term general welfare, you could read that to mean anything.
No, originalists use “original intent” when the words don’t supply specific answers to general applications. “Original intent” does provide context - I never said any different.
[/quote]
Ok…we agree on this
how so? are you denying that Common Defeense, General Welfare, Interstate Commerse, and other clauses have not been abused or that this abuse is constitutional? I guess legally it is as long as the supreme court says so, but I question whether or not the SC is still doing it’s job.
The federalist papers are good start, but what the framers may have intended is less important than how it was sold to those that actually ratified it.
Hamilton, Jay, and their followers had quite a different view of the federal gov’t than most that ratified the constitution. They knew this and in many cases told the representatives of the several states what they wanted to hear in order to get the constitution ratified. This is why I beleive the federalist papers are less important than what the ratifiers agreed certain clauses, or the constitution in general, to mean.
Fine back to common defense. What is the judiciary’s purspose if not to limit abuses of power by other branches of gov’t by determining the constitionality of any policy? Sometimes they do their job, sometimes they don’t.
yeah…so? Abuse of power and constitutionally suspect actions have been around since it was signed. What’s your point?
You’re quite right. The only thing making it bad policy instead of “illegal” is the action or inaction of the supreme court. If you are argueing that if the supreme court deems an act constitutional it must be, then I can certainly see your point. I beleive that decisions that have do have legal bearing, may still be incorrect and we can argue their constitutionality. Primarily because many judges have either forgotten what their role was truley intended to be, or they just chose to ignor it.
[quote]
You honestly believe this is justified under “common defense”?
Legally? Or politically? Yes, to the first. Somewhat, to the second - I don’t much like the idea of foreign aid, and would like to see it circumscribed quite a bit.[/quote]
Fine. Technically anything the gov’t does is legal if the Supreme Court deems it so. I contend that they often make the wrong decision.
George Washington wouldn’t have wanted hundreds of military bases scattered around the world. His contemporaries couldn’t have imagined it. Common defense, to them, did not mean that.
A good point, further illustrated by the absurd conclusion that because the Founders certainly did not envision using squadrons of jet fighter-bombers in the defense of the country, the Air Force must therefore be “unconstitutional”.[/quote]
Technology has, of unavoidable necessity, entirely redefined how “provide for the common defense” must be done. How people can’t see that remains a mystery to me. This is not 1799. What somebody does in the far reaches of the globe can and often is a clear and present danger. Furthermore, even if it isn’t, it can turn into one in near instantaneous fashion in geo-political terms. It is no longer possible, and hasn’t been for a while, to post a guard on the porch and let the world do it’s thing.
how so? are you denying that Common Defeense, General Welfare, Interstate Commerse, and other clauses have not been abused or that this abuse is constitutional? I guess legally it is as long as the supreme court says so, but I question whether or not the SC is still doing it’s job.[/quote]
Sure I think they have been abused, and in certain cases, that abuse has violated the Constitution. But “abuse” typically comes at the margins of the authorized power - overstepping boundaires - and “abuse” can’t be defined as “government actions a libertarian would prefer the federal government not do”.
Foreign aid is one of these - it is within the ambit of the power, even if you hate it with all your might.
[quote]The federalist papers are good start, but what the framers may have intended is less important than how it was sold to those that actually ratified it.
Hamilton, Jay, and their followers had quite a different view of the federal gov’t than most that ratified the constitution. They knew this and in many cases told the representatives of the several states what they wanted to hear in order to get the constitution ratified. This is why I beleive the federalist papers are less important than what the ratifiers agreed certain clauses, or the constitution in general, to mean.[/quote]
Now you are just making it up as you go along. Hamilton, Jay, and Madison were “Founders”, and inventing this fiction that “they thought one thing, but other Founders believed another and their opinions deserve more weight” is preposterous.
The Federalist Papers aren’t the only source of original principles, but you don’t get to ingore their importance simply because they hurt your argument.
The judiciary serves as check on other branches, but it doesn’t serve as a general check. The judiciary is co-equal to other branches, and may not infringe upon the constitutional prerogatives of the other branches. In plainer words, matters of foreign policy are constitutionally assigned to the Executive Branch (by and large), and a judiciary has no business micromanaging what “common defense” means.
Is it a hard line to draw? Sure, but that doesn’t mean you don’t draw it.
So the Framers were violating the Constitution they themselves framed?
No, what makes it “illegal” or not is the law of the Constitution as it is written and historically understood. What you offer is neither supported by the text nor by its historical understanding. You don’t start at the beginning, you start at the end with a conclusion you like - “the Constitution is a document that mandates an extreme libertarian view of government” - and then try and argue that the Constitution has meant this all along.
how so? are you denying that Common Defeense, General Welfare, Interstate Commerse, and other clauses have not been abused or that this abuse is constitutional? I guess legally it is as long as the supreme court says so, but I question whether or not the SC is still doing it’s job.
Sure I think they have been abused, and in certain cases, that abuse has violated the Constitution. But “abuse” typically comes at the margins of the authorized power - overstepping boundaires - and “abuse” can’t be defined as “government actions a libertarian would prefer the federal government not do”.
Foreign aid is one of these - it is within the ambit of the power, even if you hate it with all your might.
[/quote]
i am not sure how you are drawing the distinction here. a loose interpretation of general welfare to redistribute a large portion of the countries wealth is constitutional or not? a loose interpretation of interstate commerse to regulate any commerse they wish, interstate or not, is unconstitutional or not?
If your answer to either is no, why is the common defense clause any different?
The only views that matter are those that ratified the constitution on behalf of the individual states. The papers they read by framers and the discussions and debates they had serve as evidense of their understanding. It’s been awhile since I have read the federalist papers but I do recall Hamilton contradicting himself on more than one occasion.
Ratification of the Constitution was not forgone conclusion once it was written. There was a good chance at the time that it would not be ratified. Many concerns were voiced, specifically with respect to certain clauses like general welfare. During the ratification, if they all agreed it meant one thing, that’s what it meant regardless of what anyone wrote in the federalist papers or what any of them claimed it meant afterwards.
I have moved on from reading about the signing of the Constitution. I do remember specific debate on general welfare. Honestly, I don’t recall specifics of common defense. I will also admit you have me questioning my arguement a bit. Enough that I might go back and look for specific debate on common defense. I am trying to picture Washington spending a good portion of the countries income on foreign handouts and military bases around the globe, and even Hamilton claiming this to be within his constitutional power.
I don’t deny their importance as stated above.
Or general welfare? Or interstate commerse? I think anyone could take a look at specifics of international aid and point out quite a few that are in no way related to common defense. If the courts don’t draw this line, nobody can.
Yes. Do you really need me to provide specifics here? If you tell me they did not I will provide examples. I am most familiar with Jay and Hamilton.
Maybe you believe the Constitution was some epiphany from god? The perfect document that every one agreed with 100%. There were no compromises that certain parties were not happy with and woudl seek to circumvent.
[quote]
You’re quite right. The only thing making it bad policy instead of “illegal” is the action or inaction of the supreme court. If you are argueing that if the supreme court deems an act constitutional it must be, then I can certainly see your point. I beleive that decisions that have do have legal bearing, may still be incorrect and we can argue their constitutionality. Primarily because many judges have either forgotten what their role was truley intended to be, or they just chose to ignor it.
No, what makes it “illegal” or not is the law of the Constitution as it is written and historically understood. What you offer is neither supported by the text nor by its historical understanding. You don’t start at the beginning, you start at the end with a conclusion you like - “the Constitution is a document that mandates an extreme libertarian view of government” - and then try and argue that the Constitution has meant this all along.
It never has, so stop pretending it does.[/quote]
I don’t beleive I have started at the end. It was the study of how this republic was formed that moved me from left, or really not caring one way or the other, to right. It was understanding what the Constitution was intended to protect against. It was understanding why we fought the war of independance.
The Constitution was intended to limit the power of the federal gov’t. They were specifically trying to avoid relying on pure democracy to set policy and law. If the federal gov’t can justify any and all spending with a loose interpretation of the Constitution, why do we even need it? Just to classify any desired actions under certain clauses or branches of gov’t?