Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Fewer cartoons today, I presented my paper (which was well received) and there were fewer sessions. The Conference is over now, it was very successful. Lord Moncton gave the closing address in his inimitable style. I started to draw him but soon realized that nothing I could say would be nearly as funny or entertaining as his speech. It will be posted up on the web, along with my and all the other presentations.
And finally my thanks to Joe Bast and all of the hardworking folks from the sponsors, the Heartland Institute. Can’t say I agree with some of their politics, but they sure know how to throw a good conference. Much appreciated.
w.
This isn’t fair – Willis is way too good at cartoons as well as everything else he does! I am so jealous.
Willis, these are GREAT! As a brother cartoonist/caricaturist, I appreciate how you captured the essence of the subject in picture AND words!
Maybe WUWT will evolve into something like this?
http://xkcd.com/
Nice work, Willis. Now, how about a Josh-Willis (Willis-Josh) Face off? Give ’em both the same topic and let ’em draw! I see a very nice annotated and foot-noted coffee-table book here…
Well Helen Roe’s equation leaves out an important factor. It is:
D = P – E + Ws + M
where P = Precipitation, E = Evaporation,
Ws represents the *spilt Whiskey* which of course is negligible (dammit! we’re talking Irishmen here!)
and M represents Micturation (well we couldn’t call it Pee could we? We already used that letter!)
and of course, generally, M = Wb, where Wb is the amount of Whiskey in the bottle, since you only *rent* alcoholic beverages and Ws is subsumed in Wb, so combining and collapsing we get:
D = Wb -E +P, (since you always start with the Whiskey and end up having to P! )
Excellent post Willis. Water in the whiskey, isn’t that a mortal sin!
Dyspeptic Curmudgeon, instead of M, I think the more scientific letter would be U. It means the same as P and hasn’t been used yet.
Current coverage about the 4th ICCC:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/05/18/climategate-2010-the-inconvenient-facts-about-global-warming/comment-page-1/
Willis, you say you do not agree with their politics? What is it about Personal Liberty and Economic Freedom do you not subscribe to?
I don’t know what it has to do with climate change, but (as a geologist) I sort of understood your caption for Plimer. And I also understood why no one listens to them (but I think I have a sample of an ophiolite somewhere). 🙂
Poptech says:
May 18, 2010 at 4:44 pm
An example might be better than theory. Dr. Harrison Schmidt (the astronaut and the geologist) gave a speech on the Constitution and global warming. He listed a bunch of things that he thought were unconstitutional, including the EPA under Article 1 Section 8, and was roundly cheered.
I do think that the government is involved in many areas which are unconstitutional. However, Article 1 Section 8 says:
Now, I’d hold that keeping people from say pumping smog into the air or putting poisons into the river clearly falls under the “general Welfare” clause. We all jointly depend on the health of the rivers and the air which we all share. The air and the rivers don’t obey the boundaries of the several States, so I don’t see how it can be a State responsibility.
So I disagree that the EPA is unconstitutional. I would say that I generally agree with the direction of the Heartland policies, but not with the distance that they are trying to stretch them.
I don’t want this to devolve into a political discussion, so let me leave it there. I would not claim that my own views are internally consistent. I’m generally more liberal socially and very conservative economically, but I also hold views on certain subjects that don’t fit under that rubric.
My best to you and whatever beliefs you may hold,
w.
Phil R says:
May 18, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Phil, the Heartland folks are going to post up videos of all of the presentations (which is great because I could only attend one of the four breakout sessions going on at any given time). You would likely find Ian Plimer’s talk quite interesting, I know that I did. Much information I didn’t know.
Willis, do you believe the founders thought the Federal government should regulate the environment? Don’t you believe that if that was their intention they would have explicitly said environment. You do understand that the constitution was written in a context you cannot reinterpret based on your opinion but only in the context for which it was written.
I hear the same pollution argument all the time and if it was not for the EPA we would all be dead from said “pollution”. There is extensive evidence that technological advances and not the EPA have contributed more to reducing pollution.
But again the argument is not about pollution but rather the life supporting trace gas, CO2.
For the record I am 100% in support of abolishing the EPA and most of the government (outside of defense and the courts).
Phil R says:
May 18, 2010 at 5:16 pm
“I don’t know what it has to do with climate change, but (as a geologist) I sort of understood your caption for Plimer. And I also understood why no one listens to them (but I think I have a sample of an ophiolite somewhere). :)”
__________________________________________________________________________
I will match that with a sample of pyrite and raise you a sample of Malachite.
I may be a chemist but I thoroughly enjoyed the courses I took in Geo. Everyone is just too focused on the short term to appreciate geologists especially politicians.
Poptech says:
May 18, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Willis, you say you do not agree with their politics? What is it about Personal Liberty and Economic Freedom do you not subscribe to?
________________________
Willis Eschenbach says:
May 18, 2010 at 5:50 pm
An example might be better than theory. Dr. Harrison Schmidt (the astronaut and the geologist) gave a speech on the Constitution and global warming. He listed a bunch of things that he thought were unconstitutional, including the EPA under Article 1 Section 8, and was roundly cheered.
I do think that the government is involved in many areas which are unconstitutional. However, Article 1 Section 8 says:
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 …
Now, I’d hold that keeping people from say pumping smog into the air or putting poisons into the river clearly falls under the “general Welfare” clause…..”
__________________________________________________________________________
I think it is the way you look at it. The whole pollution thing should have been handled as “criminal trespass” at the very start. Unfortunately the government and courts were conned into not finding industries guilty because it was “The Price of Progress”
Instead of EPA and all the expense of a bureaucracy the Supreme Court should up hold private property rights. You do NOT have the right to pollute MY property even if you are next door.
The chemical company next door to where I worked sued my company over air pollution and won. That was in 1972 before OSHA and before EPA.
@Willis: These cartoons are quite amusing! I can’t decide which I like best (of the ones I get!)
Gail Combs May 18, 2010 at 7:09 pm:
I agree. Let pollution become an issue as it happens, rather than blanket laws and regulations that might have unintended consequences on the economy and everyone’s lives. Accidents are always going to happen and we can’t prevent them with all this extensive and expensive beauracracy. For example, BP’s leak in the Gulf of Mexico and Exxon Valdez. The regs didn’t prevent them, among many other cases both great and small.
As for the founders beliefs concerning the general welfare… I don’t think this open to interpretation. Pre-emptive legislation on the basis of the general welfare is like saying guilty until proven innocent, and that certainly wasn’t in their philosophy. That said…
I don’t think it at all invasive to require of companies that they release to the court and community the details of their plans, including a reasonable risk-assesment, for the record. There’s not just a right to know, but a need as well. That way, if there is an accident, the court will be prepared to address the problem(s). With everyone in the know, that speeds up the process and leaves no one in the dark (nor allows room for polluters/disaster-causers to wiggle their way around). Of course, that would carry with it things like permitting and court fees, like there are now I suppose. Cost of doing business, and all that.
Man… There is much more I could say but this isn’t the time or the place. Sorry to prattle on like that, folks!
And the Google random ad is for? Scientology… it’s a worry.
Gail Combs says:
May 18, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Phil R says:
Bzzt! The topic at hand was CO2 sequestering rocks and how rock formation has tied up huge amounts of CO2. Pyrite doesn’t have carbon, I forget if Malachite
does (it is a copper mineral, right?)
Climate scientists in general really ought to pay more attention to geologists, but they tend to speak truths that inconvenience the warmists.
I liked his comment something like “the volcanic eruption on Tuesday 456 million years ago….”
At any rate, I’m home, it’s late, and I’m tired. It was really a very good conference, and was certainly worth attending, and not just because Willis was next to me at lunch and I could watch him draw the Helen Roe and Joe Bast cartoons.
Poptech says:
May 18, 2010 at 6:02 pm
As I said, I feel that pollution rules are reasonably included under the “general Welfare” clause, which requires no reinterpretation. They put in general terms like that because they were smart enough to know that there was no way that they could predict future problems and issues.
Unless you want to claim that the government has no right to keep a factory in one state from poisoning fish in another state by dumping poison in a river that connects the two … can’t be handled under state law, the dumping is not going on in the state where the poisoning is happening. You can’t sue, because the fish have no standing in court and no one owns them. What would be your solution, if not the Federal Government?
Poptech (and others), Harrison Schmidt’s speech is available on PJTV (registration required). If you think the EPA should not exist, I think that you will enjoy it. The other keynote speeches (Steve McIntyre, Richard Lindzen, Lord Moncton, and others) are available there as well.
Me, I think the EPA should exist, but that it has gone way beyond what it should be doing, which is using good math, good science, and good research to make rules to keep poisons out of our water, air, and soil. That to me falls clearly under the “general Welfare” clause.
w.
Ric Werme: May 18, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Ref Gail Combs and Phil R —
I will match that with a sample of pyrite and raise you a sample of Malachite
Bzzt! The topic at hand was CO2 sequestering rocks and how rock formation has tied up huge amounts of CO2. Pyrite doesn’t have carbon, I forget if Malachite
does (it is a copper mineral, right?)
FTW — A piece of travertine from the Tigris!
Reply: I keep a jar of Halite around just in case. ~ ctm
Willis, your position is illogical because if the term was meant to be arbitrarily interpreted like that then the framers would have just included that phrase and not bothered with the rest of the powers granted to the federal government in the constitution.
As for resolving a dispute between two states that is what the Supreme Court is for. You don’t need the worthless EPA.
FYI I’ve seen Harrison’s excellent speech live.
Willis does the government have the right under the general welfare clause to make sure I eat healthy? How much of a Nanny should the government be? I mean they have a constitutional right to provide for the “general welfare” of us. You unknowingly support the slippery slope argument under the false assumption that your interpretation can only apply to your subjective opinion.
No mention of the ICCC on the BBC website or anywhere else in the UK media.
Reply: I keep a jar of Halite around just in case. ~ ctm
I buy it by the 50-pound bag when I’m home. When I’m *here*, the only NaCl I need comes in small, 1-gram packets. Insert 1 gram in 1 liter of water when the temps top +50C and consume in copious quantities.
Poptech says:
May 19, 2010 at 5:05 am
OK, Poptech … why did they include that phrase? And what do you think the framers meant by that phrase? If the environment is not included under the “general Welfare” clause, then … what is? Remember, it must be something which is not specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution.
Bear in mind that whatever you say is your interpretation. You seem to think that the meaning of the Constitution is always clear …
This is not a dispute between the states. It is one company poisoning wild fish that don’t belong to anyone.
I put that information out there for everyone, not just you.
Whether you eat healthy doesn’t affect me. While it is part of your “Welfare”, it is not part of the “general Welfare”, i.e., things that affect all of us.
All your Official Agencies should be privatized, that could be done by gradually transferring its services to private companies, so the goal to achieve would be to get all needed services through outsourcing.
Willis says:
“I’m generally more liberal socially and very conservative economically…”
That’s exactly my world view. For example, it’s none of my business what consenting adults do in private, but economic policies affect everyone. I see most wealth transfer schemes as little different than legalized theft.
But we started down this road a long time ago. The 17th Amendment pretty much gutted the 10th Amendment, and now we have Senators who are beholden to their political Party rather than to their State. And within states, gerrymandering has set up a situation where politicians choose their voters, instead of vice versa.
It’s a fine mess we’ve caused by straying from the original Constitution, and I occasionally wonder who among the players is going to be Augustus.
Is Moncton the Americanisation of the great name of Monckton perchance!
Real name: Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Willis:
The EPA itself is constitutional, but many of the regulations it imposes or proposes usurp the authority of the legislative branch and are not constitutional.
Willis it has a very simple interpretation,
The General Welfare Clause of Article 1, section 8, was intended as a shield, to ensure that Congress, in the exercise of any of its enumerated powers, would act for the general rather than for any particular welfare.
This is logical since if it was to be interpreted how you are trying the rest of the powers granted to the Federal government in the Constitution would not need to be explicitly spelled out in it, you could just use the”general welfare” clause to have the government do anything.
Willis,
I greatly admire your knowledge in the climate debate but I’m going to have to go with James Madison on the welfare clause. Writing in Federalist 41, he stated that clause in the preamble was merely a synonym for the enumerated powers that are then set down in detail in the the body of the constitution.
“that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power” – federalist 41
The framers were cognizant of the fact that they could not anticipate the distant future and provided an amendment process toward that end. Nobody asked me if I wanted an EPA. All powers must first come from the people.
One thing that I appreciate about Willis’ cartoons is that he’s poking fun at his friends as much as at those with whom he disagrees. In contrast, most Warmies appear to have had humorectomies.
Willis Eschenbach says:
Now, I’d hold that keeping people from say pumping smog into the air or putting poisons into the river clearly falls under the “general Welfare” clause.
*
*
And you’d be dreadfully wrong in that assertion.
See here, the U.S. Constitution employs THREE separate distinctions regarding of whom it speaks. Those are:
[1] The United States
[2] The several states
[3] The People
Since the U.S. Constitution is the ‘constitution of the United States,’ and NOT the several states, then its primary purpose is to define the power and authority of the central government.
And while it addresses limitations placed upon the several states, the largest body of the law itself address the United States, the corporate entity of government.
This matter is further delineated in the Tenth Article of Amendment. See:
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmentx
Now, with that in mind, the ‘general welfare’ clause speaks to the corporate entity of the government, i.e., the United States, and NOT to either the several states or the People.
If the Founders had meant to say the ‘general welfare of the country,’ they would have said so. They did not.
Therefore and therefor, you are MOST incorrect in your holding!
Gail Combs says:
May 18, 2010 at 7:09 pm
I think it is the way you look at it. The whole pollution thing should have been handled as “criminal trespass” at the very start. Unfortunately the government and courts were conned into not finding industries guilty because it was “The Price of Progress”
Instead of EPA and all the expense of a bureaucracy the Supreme Court should up hold private property rights. You do NOT have the right to pollute MY property even if you are next door.
The chemical company next door to where I worked sued my company over air pollution and won. That was in 1972 before OSHA and before EPA.
*
*
What’s your definition of ‘pollution?’
According to the EPA virtually every breathing animal is a source of pollution, i.e. CO2.
Poptech says:
May 19, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Willis it has a very simple interpretation,
The General Welfare Clause of Article 1, section 8, was intended as a shield, to ensure that Congress, in the exercise of any of its enumerated powers, would act for the general rather than for any particular welfare.
*
*
You are incorrect in your assertion for the following reasons:
[1] Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution address the LEGISLATIVE POWERS of the CONGRESS.
[2] Article I, Section 8, clause (1) says just this:
The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
[3] TAKE DUE AND CAREFUL NOTE: [2] above, speaks of THE CONGRESS and the GENERAL GOVERNMENT of the UNITED STATES. It says NOT A THING about either (A) the several states, or (B) the People.
Have a discussion some time with a lawyer whose specialty is contract law.
When I was a kid, I really, really wanted to be able to draw. But I couldn’t draw for beans. Whenever I drew, it was really, really ugly. And after while, I gave up trying to draw, the whole experience was just too unpleasant. I greatly envied those who could draw, because I knew that I’d never be able to do what they did.
Then, when I was 26 years old, on one fine day that I remember clearly, I had a huge insight. This was that drawing was not about what the final drawing looked like. That was meaningless. It was about how I felt when I was drawing. I realized that whenever I was drawing, I was so worried about what my drawing would look like, that I got all tense and cramped up, which didn’t feel good, and so my drawings didn’t look good.
When I had this insight, I took out a large piece of paper and just started drawing big circles and loops with a pencil, and simply enjoying how my arms and my hands felt doing it. I sat in the sun for hours that day, and I just drew and drew. I drew swirls and squiggles and meaningless shapes, and I gloried in the feeling, in the swing and the sweep of the movements, in how my hand and shoulder got looser as I drew rather than tighter as they always had in the past. I produced drawing after meaningless drawing of nothing at all, without caring in the slightest what they looked like.
And as a result, I began to love drawing without being concerned about results. I could draw by the hour, just because I felt so good doing it, and I didn’t care whether the finished drawings were “good” or “bad”. And in a surprisingly short time, I became good at drawing, and I began to actually like my own drawings.
I didn’t start cartooning, however, until I was about forty. One day I was sitting in a conference where people were explaining the work that they were doing, and I was bored out of my gourd by the bureaucratic doubletalk that people were spouting. So I started drawing the various contestants, and simply taking the dialogue from my own demented misinterpretations of what they were saying.
I’m explaining this to encourage people to push their own boundaries. I was a man who couldn’t draw a decent line no matter how hard I tried … and now I is a cartoonist. By and large, there is no limit to what you can do if you focus your intention and are willing to do your homework, other than the limits you put on yourself.
So 899 is Madison (who wrote the Constitution) lying?
Federalist No. 41
“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!”
Poptech, if Madison had to make that argument so vehemently and passionately, then obviously there were others among the Founding Fathers who must have held the opposite view to that of Madison … which is why I am always suspicious of all claims about what the “Founding Fathers thought”. They obviously believed different things and held opposing views, there was little agreement among them and much passionate argument … sounds like today.
So let’s leave it at that. As I said, this is not the thread for constitutional arguments. Madison had one belief, his opponents obviously had another, the same as you and I … so I doubt that a centuries-old debate will get settled here.
My best to you,
w.
Poptech says:
May 20, 2010 at 5:26 am
So 899 is Madison (who wrote the Constitution) lying?
*
*
Again, you either misread or misconstrue his intent.
Since you are wont to quote the author, then here are some other quotes by him and others during and after that period:
In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying,
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
– James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)
———
“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. If the words obtained so readily a place in the “Articles of Confederation,” and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.”
~ James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson ~
———
“…[T]he 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
———
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one….”
– James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792.
———
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817.
From: “Constitutional Limitations on Government”
http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/govt.html
———
“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.”
– President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875.[1877]
———
“I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity.[To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”
– President Franklin Pierce’s 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.
———
Now there you have four separate presidents, two from the founding, and two subsequent.
Their words coincide exactly.
It should now be abundantly clear —I would hope— that the clause in question meant only the ‘welfare,’ i.e., the support necessary for the proper functioning of the United States government and for NO other purposes.
Willis Eschenbach says:
May 20, 2010 at 11:51 am
Poptech, if Madison had to make that argument so vehemently and passionately, then obviously there were others among the Founding Fathers who must have held the opposite view to that of Madison … which is why I am always suspicious of all claims about what the “Founding Fathers thought”. They obviously believed different things and held opposing views, there was little agreement among them and much passionate argument … sounds like today.
*
*
It would seem that the Founder’s own words on the subject are contrary to your own, inasmuch as IF there had been such disagreement of which you are wont to remark, then the Constitution would not have been ratified by the several states.
The Subsequent Bill of Rights addressed the concerns of the many, and its preamble says as much:
Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
http://www.billofrights.org/
@ CRS, Dr.P.H.
“Maybe WUWT will evolve into something like this?
http://xkcd.com/”
Thank you CRS, my work throughput has diminished considerably!
899 says:
May 20, 2010 at 12:50 pm
The Constitution was ratified, but not without huge disagreements about it which existed then, and have continued for more than two centuries. What, do you think they all agreed on every point? Hardly. It was a political document, not a statement of things that everyone agreed with, and was very difficult to get ratified at that. Heck, there was a whole political party (Antifederalists) dedicated to keeping the Constitution from being ratified. North Carolina voted not to ratify, and it barely passed in New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia.
So yes, there was plenty of disagreement …
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
May 20, 2010 at 2:42 pm
The Constitution was ratified, but not without huge disagreements about it which existed then, and have continued for more than two centuries. What, do you think they all agreed on every point? Hardly. It was a political document, not a statement of things that everyone agreed with, and was very difficult to get ratified at that. Heck, there was a whole political party (Antifederalists) dedicated to keeping the Constitution from being ratified. North Carolina voted not to ratify, and it barely passed in New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia.
*
*
Nonetheless, the author of that document spoke contrary to your personal holdings regarding the ‘general welfare’ clause. And again, in no case are the several states or the People mentioned therein of the clause.
The Tenth Article of Amendment seals that fate fully, for the states and the people are free to determine for themselves how things will be within their borders, and not be dictated to by an out-of-control federal government.
Even if you think to use the commerce clause, any proper reading of that, including what it actually means and conveys, speaks entirely of interstate commerce and NOT intrastate commerce.
Finally, it needs to be said again: The U.S. Constitution is a document of LIMITED powers.
I have an old saying, which you might take to heart: The Constitution is the railroad track upon which the engine of government must travel; where there are no tracks, there can be no legal or lawful travel.
I remind you of this quote:
~~~
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 32.
~~~
Willis, so you believe the founding fathers agreed to give the Federal Government limitless power through a phrase accompanying a section of the constitution dealing with taxation? Seriously? You really believe this? I can make an much simpler constitution,
Article 1, Section 1 “The Federal Government has Limitless Power”
Do you accept James Madison and Thomas Jefferson as competent to understand the constitution?
Poptech says:
May 20, 2010 at 8:54 pm (Edit)
OK, moratorium on this constitutional question for me. When you start making up what you think my position is, when I have never said anything remotely resembling your claim (limitless power??? where did I say that???), it is clear that this subject has jumped the shark … let us shake hands and part friends, with the knowledge that honest men of good will have held differing views on this very question for over two centuries.