You are getting healthcare dammit!

Jarod said:
Ahhh, so now Federalist 41 is part of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?
Click to expand...
:palm:

If you want to learn the intent of the signers of the Constitution, look to the writers, in their sales presentation to the American People: The Federalist Papers.
 
Southern Man said:
When I said:



And you replied:



I am to take that you agree with me? :)
Click to expand...

I disagree with the simplicity of your statement and its useage as an argument that what the Federalist papers say should be an absolute about our Constitution.
 
Jarod said:
I disagree with the simplicity of your statement and its useage as an argument that what the Federalist papers say should be an absolute about our Constitution.
Click to expand...
Straw man by use of the term "absolute". Do you deny that the Federalist Papers are the correct tool when interpreting the Constitution, since they were written by the Founders specifically to discuss their intentions?
 
Southern Man said:
Straw man by use of the term "absolute". Do you deny that the Federalist Papers are the correct tool when interpreting the Constitution, since they were written by the Founders specifically to discuss their intentions?
Click to expand...

I believe they are a tool to use, but not the end all be all.

There were other arguments and opinions.
 
Jarod said:
I believe they are a tool to use, but not the end all be all.

There were other arguments and opinions.
Click to expand...

What argument do you have that supersedes Madison's, that the "general Welfare" clause is limited to specific enumerated powers?

In the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. The subordinate governments, which can extend their care to all those other subjects which can be separately provided for, will retain their due authority and activity.



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!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top