Posted on 10/20/2014 11:48:04 AM PDT by Publius
The Founders had understood the term “means to an end” and had essentially made a list of “ends,” evidenced by Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, trusting Congress to perform its duty to accomplish its Section 8-limited ends by reasonable means. And this gives us an idea why the delegates to the Con-Con ultimately removed the word “expressly” from the 10th Amendment before ratifying the “Bill of Rights,” leaving it up to Congress to employ reasonable means to perform its Section 8 duties.
However, traitor Alexander Hamilton was the probably the first to exploit problems with the idea of “means to an end” which ultimately completely defeated the purpose of Congress’s Section 8-limited powers imo.
More specifically, probably the only reason that Hamilton attended the Con-Con was to convince his fellow delegates to grant Congress the constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited power to establish a national bank. In other words, Hamilton probably wanted to see an additional clause in Section 8 which gave Congress the power, the “end,” to establish such a bank.
But probably to Hamilton’s disappointment, when delegate Ben Franklin had suggested adding wording in Clause 7 of Section 8, the clause which gave Congress the power to make mail roads, to also give Congress the power to build canals presumably to facilitate commerce (mail roads and canals regarded as “ends” for Congress to achieve), the following happened. The delegates from some states feared that establishing a national bank, which the delegates didn’t want, would be a justifiable means for Congress to achieve its “end” to regulate canals. So since delegates didn’t want to give Congess an excuse to establish a natonal bank, a means becoming an unwanted “end," Franklin’s suggestion to add canals to Clause 7 was ignored.
Consider the following excerpt from Thomas Jefferson’s writings concerning this particular debate.”
“A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution [emphasis added].” —Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
I suspect that Hamilton planned “evasive maneuvers” from that point to get his national bank. This is evidenced by Hamilton later using his power as Treasury Secretary to argue such a bank as a “means to an end” in conjunction with the “necessary and proper” clause, Clause 18 of Section 8, to get his national bank, a strategy that ultimately worked.
To grasp the folly of this equation, all that is necessary is to a) realize that the practical definition of "Necessary and Proper" ultimately is a matter of opinion, and to me it is not quite clear which individual or entity claimed the ultimate exclusive and permanent right to make it.
And b) shudder to think that a William B.J. Clinton doppelganger took it upon himself to claim it. "Necessary." and "Proper" in the same manner as inventing an ambiguity in the word "is!"
Bottom line for me : a similar genesis for the unchallenged acceptance of "Law by Executive order!"
Hey Sam, stuff it.
It is a facile exercise to judge conditions and attitudes of 165 years ago with the perspective resulting from an equal length of time's worth of hindsight.
And obviously, at the time it was "Christian" by definition, regardless of your current pious redefinition of a dynamic "reality."
Finally, the range of years defining a "generation" is all over the place, but common usage the last 50 years has ranged from 18 to 35 years. Taking the upper value generally accepted, would place the beginning of the change at least two generations ago.
Thank you for clearing that up, dear Publius! Hamilton himself is a tad confusing, on his history. So is Jefferson for that matter. Whatever, we are all sinners. But I just hate it when people gratuitously change the historical meaning of words....
Anyhoot, by the above definition, I'm definitely a Federalist.
Thank you so very much for this excellent, thought-provoking article, Publius!
My brain hurts. :)
Well I know that feeling, dear trisham!
It's hard to get a grasp on things, when the very meaning of words is constantly being redefined. Such words, as for instance: Federalist; Nationalist; Republican; Democrat; and so forth.
From the very beginning of the American nation, the spirit of partisan politics began to take hold.
Washington and his presidential successor Adams were clearly aligned with the Federalist school of thought. When Jefferson subsequently emerged, he called himself a "Republican." And fought the Federalists tooth and nail, every chance he got.
But what does this drama mean, if we don't know how to define "Federalist" and "Republican?"
So I am very grateful to Publius for his insight that the designation/definition "Federalist" originally referred to the problem of "States' rights v. national government rights," and came down on the side of the rights of the States, in balance with the original constitutional plan as specified in the Tenth Amendment.
And so, I am a Federalist. Go figure!!!
I’ll just have to keep reminding myself that it’s the opposite of what it seems! :)
Ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.