Yes, each enumerated power is essentially an entity unto itself.

Agreed, but why you don't think so is beyond me. There are subordinate clauses containing details of various powers such as those regarding militia officers. In this case "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" is a modifier to the power to lay and collect taxes, just as you say. So how does one interepret what is acknowledged to be a modifier to be its own enumerated power?

As I said above, each power is separate. The reason one must include (or at least acknowledge) the sentence in its entirety rather than provide the limited quote you provided is to show that they are, in fact, enumerated powers. Given that there is a specified list of powers, to include one, especially at the top of the list, that essentially says "do whatever the f* you want" negates the rest of the list and thus is logically incongruent with the rest of the document.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

The point still remains that resources are required to generate wealth in the first place. It just so happens that all current wealth (as it is defined) is based on limited and non renewable natural resources.

This is exactly what will happen - use up all the resources before it dawns on us that we don't really need to.

Efficiency always lowers the price, otherwise there would be no incentive to adopt the efficiency in the first place.

And increasing efficiency inevitably creates demand. That is the way it has always happened and will continue to happen. If it did not lower the price it could not make it to market. I.e., Who is going to invest in and buy efficient automobiles that costs more instead of less?

When will an efficient automobile actually make it to market? When it is cheaper than a non-efficient model, and then it will sell more, and more people will drive, and the demand for fuel, roads, etc will rise.


As the leader i would discourage and heavily tax the import/export of food. I would conversely encourage through incentives the localization of food. This would guarantee that the amount of people on a given area of land is exactly what that land can support. As an aside it will also force people to take great care of their land base. This would solve two problems - population increase and landbase destruction.

Even in relative terms, since there is no reason to believe the happiest individual of a previous era is less happy than the happiest person today.

In essence what i mean is this: 10 people suffering is effectively worse than 5 people suffering but 10 happy people is not effectively any better than 5 happy people.

That is exactly the crux of where we disagree. Wealth and growth as we define it is dependent on the exponential depletion of non-renewable natural resources. Even if the price of a commodity can increase (or decrease) to create (or diminish) monetary wealth, the wealth itself only exists by virtue of the material resource in the first place.

That would not be part of the plan. People would have as many kids as they can support, same as today. The difference is that a community will know how much food the land can provide and for how many people. Tough decisions will have to be made, but they will be personal and community based decisions.

Those limits are not surmountable. They are only avoidable.

I agree that wealth and growth is good, just not as it is currently defined. As it is currently defined, wealth and growth are insane. We need to redefine our ends.

Because the current global population is supported by fossil fuels, and fossil fuels will decline. There is nothing that can replace the EROEI of fossil fuels on earth. Therefore, there is nothing that can support the population we have but easy cheap fossil fuels.

Again, we are working here with two different definitions of what growth is. You are limiting it to material wealth based on the acquisition of widgets made from non-renewable resources. That is not my definition of growth, that to me sounds far more like stagnation and atrophy than the more expansive growth i have in mind. Think of the growth you experience when you learn something new, when you hear a good story, when you hear a beautiful piece of music or understand a great work of art. Think of the growth people experience just from something as simple and sustainable as love or friendship. Think of the spiritual growth that people with religion experience.

The only type of growth i currently see in the human condition is obesity and isolation, specifically because we have allowed ourselves to stagnate so much, by deluding ourselves into thinking that the growth of material consumption is the end all and be all of human culture.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

I'm sorry, Andrew, my fervor for this issue has gone out. Besides, we both know where we're heading anyway. I would just say this in conclusion:
1) The only natural resource growth and wealth are limited by is the human mind. Once we start limiting how many human minds are available to address the problems which come up we start limiting our ability to solve them. Limiting how many children people have, either directly or indirectly, puts us on a path of not having the requisite material we need when we really need them.

2) We're never going to run out of raw materials because the last barrel of oil, the last ton of ore, the last ton of coal will all remain in the ground; they'll be too expensive to extract.

3) If there is no reason to strive for something better, people will not strive for something better. Take away the prospect of growth, and there will be no growth. Take away the incentive for improvement, and there will be no improvement. Where there is no growth, where there is no improvement, there is stagnation. Stagnation is not good for living organisms. Particularly Man.

4) Decide upon what ends are important, then work toward finding effective means. It is not oil upon which wealth and growth are dependent. If wealth and growth are dependent upon anything besides human ingenuity they are dependent upon energy. Energy can never be destroyed, so it is unlimited, therefore growth and wealth are unlimited.

5) Have some faith in your fellow Man, Andrew.

You get the last word.

Be well.

Greetin's, master CD!

me business depends on the idear that we need to keeup with them Joneses. its not the way i live me own life, but i needs folks out thar who think that way.

it keeps the gold flowin' into me coffers.

aye.

-MeadHallPirate

One does not. The enumerated power is the power to lay and collect taxes -- and, by implication, to spend the money so collected. The modifier is that this power may be used to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Congress can't do anything it wants in service to these ends -- it may only tax and spend in service to them.

But that's not what I'm saying. I thought I made that clear. Congress can't "do whatever the fuck it wants" to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. There are a whole slew of things it can't do. I gave one example: it has no authority to outlaw polyester leisure suits, however much that might serve the general welfare, because that doesn't consist solely of taxing and spending, but requires passing criminal legislation, and Congress is not empowered to pass criminal legislation in service to the general welfare -- only to tax and spend. One can think of many others, too. Actually, there are very few of the other enumerated powers encompassed by this. The power to tax and spend, for instance, does not imply the power to set standards of weights and measures, or to establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court, or to declare war. I suppose it does encompass the power to maintain an army and navy, so perhaps those powers are redundant apart from the restriction that an army must be funded for no more than two years ahead. But most of them need separate statement.

What Congress CAN do, though, is to tax and spend in whatever way it pleases in service to the common defense and general welfare. If you agree, as you say you do, that each enumerated power is separate and not modified by the others, then you can come to no other conclusion. To say, as you did, that the power to tax and spend can only be used in conjunction with the other enumerated powers, is to say that each enumerated power is NOT separate. Or at least that the first one isn't.

This doesn't prevent Congress from taxing the leisure-suit makers at 100%, nor spending all tax revenue on purchasing non-leisure suits for every American. In effect, outlawing leisure suits isn't necessary when you can kill the industry through taxation. In effect, not having the power to legislate doesn't avoid the ends at all. In effect, providing such an all-encompassing power does render the rest of the document null and void.

Well said.

Too bad such simple logic will be lost on SOME people.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on the article of the Constitution which grants a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

in reply to california girl ` lazy bastards`? please elaborate i`m english, working and would pit the english model against the american model any day

Nice exchange between a 5 bug and 8 bug contributor. As a 1 bug contributor I feel slightly inferior and thought I might use a sub routine to add 30,000 + posts or enough to create a double row and thus command the respect of the audience by default.

Seriously the argument is very interesting to me but I believe I side (with rare exception) with Andrew.

For instance; "And increasing efficiency inevitably creates demand. That is the way it has always happened and will continue to happen. If it did not lower the price it could not make it to market. I.e., Who is going to invest in and buy efficient automobiles that costs more instead of less"?

It is often the "sizzel" not the "Steak" that is the compelling reason to buy.

And,,,I agree that wealth and growth is good, just not as it is currently defined. As it is currently defined, wealth and growth are insane. We need to redefine our ends.

Wealth = More: Bigger , Better , Lasting. How else coulf it be defined ?

Thanks for the read !

There is, in fact, nothing in the Constitution to prevent the government from taxing leisure suits at 100% or providing free tasteful clothing to every American. That specific fact does not translate into a general power to do anything whatsoever, but yes, the power to tax and spend is very, very broad, and the qualifying clause not restrictive in the least.

The anti-federalists were, in many respects, right, and the arguments of the three framers in the Federalist Papers, when they depended on claims that the document created a limited government, were specious, and either incorrect or dishonest. (I suspect incorrect on the part of Madison, dishonest on the part of Hamilton. Not so sure about Jay.) The Constitution was designed to strengthen the central government, and it certainly did that! Not only the tax-and-spend empowerment, but also the power to regulate commerce, is extremely broad. If the goal was to create a limited, small government, then the anti-federalists were right in their concerns. The U.S. Constitution does not serve that end.

It does of course have safety features. Separation of powers is built into it, and has worked over the centuries to prevent any one person from acquiring too much power. Public accountability is also built into it, and has been strengthened by amendment. (Yes, I know it's a long way from perfect. It's still better than nothing.) There are specific prohibitions on specific government actions, most obviously the Bill of Rights. But the limitation that is supposed to come from the fact of its being a document of enumerated powers with all other powers left to the states or the people, is almost not there at all. And that was true from the beginning, and by design.

Libertarians and conservatives think the federal government has acquired a lot of powers since the Constitution's founding that were not included in the original document. They are mistaken. The federal government has, since the Constitution's founding, begun to use powers that were granted to it from the first, but unused for a long time because there was no need and so no demand that it use them. Federal funding for education is a good example. This is obviously the spending of money for the general welfare of the United States. But for a long time, the people didn't see a need for it, and so it wasn't done; education was funded at the state level, or (in the beginning) not at all. Welfare/poverty relief is another example. That was also a state and local concern for a long time, but not because the federal government wasn't empowered to spend money for the purpose -- merely because no need was seen for it to do so, until the states were overwhelmed by the Great Depression, and the federal government (which finds it easier to borrow money) was called on to meet the shortfall.

It's pointless to do as Norrin has done and trot out the words of James Madison as some kind of proof that the first enumerated power doesn't entitle Congress to spend money except on the other enumerated powers. Even if Madison believed that, his informal title of "Father of the Constitution" is misapplied, as he himself said: he was only one of many people who contributed to the document, an important one in terms of forging agreement and compromise, but by no means the document's sole author. It's always been my belief that there is a lot more Alexander Hamilton in the Constitution than there is James Madison. If Madison (or Jefferson) had designed it, I believe it would not only have been a lot more restricted, but also a lot more democratic, than it actually was in the beginning. We know Hamilton didn't get everything he wanted; he wanted a lifetime presidency, for example. But he clearly got a lot.

For libertarians to treat the U.S. Constitution as some kind of icon is in my opinion romantic silliness. That is not a libertarian document. As Patrick Henry said, it "squints towards monarchy." The only libertarian features in it are the ones added by the anti-federalists: the Bill of Rights, and certain similar language included in the main document.

What SEPARATION OF POWERS?

State's rights are almost non-existent.

The FEDGOV has used highway tax dollars to coerce states into passing BAC laws, seat belt laws, speed limit laws and the 21 drinking age.

At least 11 states have passed legislation legalizing medical marijuana, yet the FEDGOV stomps out any attempt to legaalize this relatively harmless drug for use as medicine, while our children are drugged up on much more dangerous drugs like Ritalin and Anti-Depressants.

Oxycontin can be prescribed, but marijuana can't?

There are also states that have tried to get "permission" from the FEDGOV to grow hemp, yet our beloved FEDGOV won't even allow the growing of a plant which is not capable of getting people high, as they claim it looks to much like marijuana and people would try to hide marijauna plants with the hemp. This is stupid argument as no pot grower who knows anything about pot would hide pot near hemp since they would cross pollinate making the marijuana worthless.

There are many more examples, like the NO Child Left Behind Act, as well as Public Law 94-142.

On top of these abuses of power by the FEDGOV, the Supreme Court has also abused it's power. Their ruling on eminent domain abuse is a prime example. Anyone who thinks it is o.k. for local governments to take land to be used for commercial development either does not understand the principles this country was founded upon, or does not believe in those principles.

I could go on, but once again, it is pointless. Since you have admitted you support world government, this means you are willing to let the US constitution die.

Between the three branches of the federal government, if nothing else. That works.

Close to it. And even now, the federal government hasn't been called on to exercise its powers to the limit. There is nothing at law to stop it, for example, from increasing taxes to the point that there would be no revenue left over for the states at all, and state governments couldn't function. I don't expect that to happen, but it hasn't happened only because the people don't want it to, not because the Constitution won't allow it.

That doesn't follow. But you apparently don't have a very high opinion of the Constitution yourself, because every one of the federal abuses you mentioned is consistent with that document. The war on drugs sucks, but Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and banning drugs intended for sale that could cross state lines is part of that. The Court's ruling on eminent domain in the case you cited sucks, too, but the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to make that ruling.

The Constitution doesn't serve your ideals, Norrin. In the constitutional debate of 1786-87, you would have been an antifederalist.

BULLSHIT.

It doesn't work. The FEDGOV has trampled the rights of the states.

Ever hear of the 10th amendment?

The Supreme Court can be wrong. You seem to accept the SC rulings, even when there is a split vote. You seem to accept that the 5 are always right and the 4 are always wrong. I do NOT ACCEPT THAT.

If we had SC justices who actually understood the constitution and believed in the ideals this country was founded upon, they would have never made their eminent domain decision like they did. It is a travesty of justice and an insult to everything the founding fathers did to try to give us a better government.

As to the interstate commerce clause, it has been abused almost as much as the general welfare clause.

HEMP IS NOT A DRUG.

If the FEDGOV can ban any product, or even a plant because of the interstate commerce clause, then the FEDGOV is not limited, but UNLIMITED.

WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL OF THIS BEFORE.

SC justice Hugo Black wrote in his dissent for Griswold v. Connecticut.......

If any broad, unlimited power to hold laws unconstitutional because they offend what this Court conceives to be the "[collective] conscience of our people" is vested in this Court by the Ninth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, or any other provision of the Constitution, it was not given by the Framers, but rather has been bestowed on the Court by the Court. This fact is perhaps responsible for the peculiar phenomenon that, for a period of a century and a half, no serious suggestion was ever made that the Ninth Amendment, enacted to protect state powers against federal invasion, could be used as a weapon of federal power to prevent state legislatures from passing laws they consider appropriate to govern local affairs. Use of any such broad, unbounded judicial authority would make of this Court's members a day-to-day constitutional convention.

I repeat, so as not to be misunderstood, that this Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision [p521] of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose flexible. uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts, and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up, and, at the same time, threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have. [n16] [p522]

I realize that many good and able men have eloquently spoken and written, sometimes in rhapsodical strains, about the duty of this Court to keep the Constitution in tune with the times. The idea is that the Constitution must be changed from time to time, and that this Court is charged with a duty to make those changes. For myself, I must, with all deference, reject that philosophy. The Constitution makers knew the need for change, and provided for it. Amendments suggested by the people's elected representatives can be submitted to the people or their selected agents for ratification. That method of change was good for our Fathers, and, being somewhat old-fashioned, I must add it is good enough for me. And so I cannot rely on the Due Process Clause or the Ninth Amendment or any mysterious and uncertain natural law concept as a reason for striking down this state law. The Due Process Clause, with an "arbitrary and capricious" or "shocking to the conscience" formula, was liberally used by this Court to strike down economic legislation in the early decades of this century, threatening, many people thought, the tranquility and stability of the Nation. See, e.g., Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45. That formula, based on subjective considerations of "natural justice," is no less dangerous when used to enforce this Court's views about personal rights than those about economic rights. I had thought that we had laid that formula, as a means for striking down state legislation, to rest once and for all in cases like West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379; Olsen v. Nebraska ex rel. Western Reference & Bond Assn., 313 U.S. 236, and many other [p523] opinions. [n17] See also Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 74 (Holmes, J., dissenting).