I haven't read Bucky Fuller.

What part of the explanation was incomprehensible?

Was it the part about a general power meaning what it says it means or was it the enumeration of specific powers that say what the common defense and general welfare mean that was unclear?

Let's try it as a simple yes or no question: Do you believe the general welfare clause implies that taxes levied can be spent to enact legislation that isn't covered by the other enumerated powers?

That's as much as to say that the weaker government would have worked fine if everyone could have been reasonable and gotten along. What was needed was a government strong enough to hold the country together even when an issue was on the table that made people behave unreasonably and not get along. People being people, that will happen sometimes.

First off, I'm going to disagree with you that what we have today is "authoritarian rule." That implies something more than big government. It implies that civil liberties are not respected. The Bush administration made some troubling moves that direction, which the Obama administration has, also troublingly, not fully reversed, but we are still not there at this point. (Also, I believe these things are probably temporary. It's normal for civil liberties to be compromised during a Crisis era, which we're in yet again.)

But if I discard that phrase and replace it with what I think you mean, the stronger central government that was established after the Civil War, then what you're saying is that if the minimal government of Jefferson's vision couldn't be preserved, it would be better to let the country fragment.

I'm going to refer to the Federalist papers here. Particularly Federalist #6 through 8 (Hamilton).

Federalist Papers Index

Federalist #6.

Federalist no. 8.

I am in full agreement with Mr. Hamilton's reasoning here. The preservation of the union was worth strengthening the government at that time, and when the necessity presented itself it was worth doing once more in the 1860s. In fact, the Civil War itself is a perfect demonstration that he was right. When the nation did break apart, war between the two sections commenced within a single year. It is perhaps less likely today that full-scale military confilct would result from disunion, but a loss of cooperation and of mutual prosperity would be inevitable, and the resulting conflicts, even if short of war, would certainly curtail liberty to a great degree.

Harry Turtledove wrote a well-though-out (if excessively long-winded) alternate history series based on the premise that the south won the Civil War. (Basically, that courier recovered the cigars with Lee's battle plans before Antietam rather than having them fall into Union hands.) There were a lot of interesting twists and turns -- Lincoln joining the Socialist Party and taking a lot of Republicans with him, so that the two-party system consisted of conservative Democrats and progressive Socialists, is just one of them. But the main theme was war. When World War I began in Europe, both American nations were part of the rival alliances, and so an American front broke out, complete with trenches, barbed wire, and poison gas. The Confederate defeat in that war and the financial ruin that followed brought an embittered artillery sergeant to power (an American Hitler, obviously) and so the two nations fought each other again in World War II.

The details are imaginative, but the totally plausible thing about the series was the general reality of continued hostility through the years after the War of Secession ended.

Completely certain. The government doesn't have to do things exactly the way it does now, and I would change many of the same things you list in this post. But an industrial economy requires a stronger government. The functions of government are threefold (in my opinion): 1) Collective defense against external aggression; 2) Resolving disputes among citizens; and 3) Making and implementing collective decisions for the benefit of the commonwealth.

It's the second two that necessitate a bigger, more involved government in an industrial economy. First, with a larger and more concentrated population, the number of vectors of disputes expands dramatically, and the same happens with the explosion of wealth. These disputes would tear a nation apart absent a strong and involved government. Second, the increased wealth means and implies increased means to take collective (just as individual) action, and so the importance of collective decision-making increases.

As for your specific ideas, I generally like them. I would point out, however, that this is a far cry from restoring the pre-Civil War loose confederation.

You too? I'm looking for work myself; interesting story about how and why.

I'll keep my eyes open, but while there is a lot of computer-industry activity here, it's a long way from Philadelphia.

Yes. I subscribe to the federalist doctrine of specifically enumerated general powers that provide the extent of those powers and specifically enumerated specific powers that explain and qualify what was meant by the general powers to, provide for the common defense and general welfare.

As long as it is for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States as specifically enumerated by that general power; it can be considered within the scope of the powers delegated to our federal Congress.

In other words, our tax monies are not be used for the general Badfare, the common Offense, or the general Warfare without for-cause criteria and preferably a formal declaration against a lawful sovereign State. Otherwise, it could be considered an infringement on our Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

The other specific powers are meant to explain and qualify what was meant by the general welfare and common defense.

You keep referring to the discredited republican doctrine when you claim that our federal Congress is only authorized those specifically enumerated specific powers. If that were the case, we would not have an Air Force since it is not specifically enumerated; it originally was part of the Army air corps. Our Drug and Terror wars are also not specifically enumerated and the power to Prohibit commerce among the several States was repealed.

Ok, that seems like a clear answer.

Now, do you realize that the Madison quote you cited is arguing directly against this view?

How is this republican doctrine? The Republicans seem pretty happy with the expanded federal powers justified by the general welfare exploit.

Indeed. It would disqualify a large chunk of what the federal government currently does. That's sort of the point. You're really not getting what I'm saying, are you?

How did you reach your conclusion? I selected that quote because it supports my contention of why our Founding Fathers took the time to enumerate the general powers. Why would they include those general powers (and limitations on what public monies were to be spent on) if they were to be nugatory?

It comes across as a form of republican doctrine because they are the ones that usually subscribe to the concept of specifically enumerated specific powers, whenever they don't need to come up with fallacies for the common Offense, or general Warfare.

I am getting at what you are saying. I disagree because we are no longer a third world political-economy.

I reached my conclusion, in part, because I'm familiar with the debate and I know Madison's position. But it also seems quite clear, merely from the quote, that he is rejecting the efforts of those promoting your view of the general welfare clause.

Madison is denying that the qualifier on the taxation power is, in and of itself, an enumerated power. His point is that they wouldn't have taken the time to enumerate specific powers if the supposed "general welfare" power encompassed them all.

Whether the set of powers enumerated is practical for our current situation has nothing to do with the meaning or intent of the document. If it is the case that the federal government needs more power, then we should add to the list. Not manufacture new powers through grammatical loopholes.

Can you cite the specific wording that implied that conclusion?

This is what Madison is saying about the Anti-federalist argument, that "No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction."

In other words, not everything qualifies as the general welfare or common defense. "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." He is claiming that the Anit-federalist writers are stooping to misconstruction.

In other words, if there had been no qualifications or explanations of the general expression of that general power, then "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."

In other words, how can the opposing viewpoint (i.e. Anti-federalists) have any relevant objections if "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?"


That is why they put in the "specification" of specifically enumerated specific powers after the General specification of General powers, because, "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." This "explanation and qualification" of the general powers provide insight into what our Founding Fathers meant by the common Defense and general Welfare.

This explains why our Founding Fathers didn't simply provide a list of specifically enumerated specific powers without the general qualifiers on what constitutes the common defense and general welfare. "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."

Why would our Founding Fathers want to Promote (instead of merely provide for) the general welfare if they had listed all the available powers delegated?

You are absolutely right about Madison's position, at least before the War of 1812. After that he reversed himself on a number of points, seeking a stronger central government with a stronger military and a central bank.

However, I also have to say that this argument by Madison is a straw man. There is no "general welfare" power; rather, there is a taxation power (and by implication a spending power), and the "general welfare" clause is a modification of that.

I would also say that it doesn't imply some of the things that Daniel is suggesting in the way of limitations. The fact that the "common defense and general welfare" clause is there to modify the power to tax and spend, means that it does not apply to the other enumerated powers, such as the power to declare war.

Things change. That's a fact, and the framers were well aware of it. There are two ways to make a constitution that will endure over a long period, despite unpredictable changes of circumstance. One way is to make the powers it grants the government sufficiently broad that it can adapt itself as needed. The other is to make those powers quite narrow and clearly defined, but allow an easy amendment process to add new ones or modify existing ones as circumstances change.

It's very clear which way the framers chose to go. The amendment process is not easy. It's quite daunting: 2/3 majority vote in both houses of Congress, followed by ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

At the same time, while a lot of the federal powers are narrowly defined, there are at least two, plus one catch-all, that are very broad. One is the power to tax and spend, which is the subject of this thread. The other is the power to regulate commerce between the states and with foreign nations. The catch-all is of course the power to make any legislation "necessary and proper" to perform any of the other powers and duties enumerated -- including those two very broad powers.

Madison's philosophy to the contrary notwithstanding, the U.S. government is granted powers by the Constitution that are potentially very broad in scope. The real safeguards built into the system are not the limitation implied by the enumerated powers, but rather the structure of the government itself with its checks and balances, together with the explicitly forbidden government acts. (Some of those, granted, need some reinforcement at this point in time.)

I think many of the opposing viewpoint are stooping to that same Anti-federalist misconstruction.

Paying the Debts and providing for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States are the scope of the general powers. It means, that public monies should not be spent of the general Badfare, the common Offense, or the general Warfare as is current practice.

The powers listed after the general powers are specific examples and qualifications of what was meant by the common defense and general welfare (as the scope and basis for authority of the specific powers.)

No it doesn't. It means that public money should be spent on the general welfare and common defense, not on playing favorites among the states. The problem is that "welfare" and "defense" are imprecise words. What you are calling "badfare," another person might call welfare; what you are calling "offense," another might call defense, and with full justification if we accept their governing assumptions. For example, Bush argued that the invasion of Iraq had a defensive justification. We are at liberty to disagree with him, but the fact remains the invasion of Iraq was not unconstitutional, however asinine and immoral it may have been.

Words have precise cognitive meaning and are not to be chosen purely for their feel-good qualities.

Again, no. They are separate enumerated powers. They are not part of the power to tax and spend, which is what is modified by the "common defense and general welfare" clause -- that and nothing else.

You are making the same mistake, in reverse, that is made by those who argue that the first power does not exist except in service to the others. The power to establish standards of weights and measures (for example) has nothing to do with the power to tax and spend.

Perhaps it helps to read the entire first power, clauses and all, as of a piece, thus:

"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."

The power: to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.

The purpose: to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

The restriction: but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

nice opinion. relevance?
nice opinion. substantiation? relevance?

__________________

why is there no talk of court cases in this thread?

the written constitution is but 1/1,000,000,000,000 of the practical constitution.

the written constitution, without a court system to interpret it and apply it, would be a meaningless rag used beside the toilet.

__________________

That same charge could be levied against the republicans for not insisting on a formal declaration of war, marque or reprisal, as specifically enumerated in our Constitution.

Did we ensure that the Natural rights of Nature took precedence over the "Natural" rights of Nurture simply "for their feel-good qualities."