>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Here is what Patrick Henry had to say about the constitution at the Virginia ratification convention, when he was trying to stop it's ratification. He is arguing that it is going to do the exact thing your saying it doesn't!"
There were many anti-federalists who didn't believe the Constitution provided enough protection from big-government tyrants (such as Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln turned out to be.) The framers never envisioned a usurper could navigate past so many barriers, particularly when the powers of the federal government were distinctly listed and defined. But slick rhetoricians, who can also act out the part of sincerity (like Clay and Lincoln,) can easily fool the masses.
James Madison ran into that kind of slick rhetoric on the floor of the House as early as 1791 (probably much earlier) in the form of abuse of the "general warfare" clause:
No argument could be drawn from the terms "common defence and general welfare." The power as to these general purposes was limited to acts laying taxes for them; and the general purposes themselves were limited and explained by the particular enumeration subjoined. To understand these terms in any sense that would justify the power in question, would give to Congress an unlimited power; would render nugatory the enumeration of particular powers; would supersede all the powers reserved to the State Governments. These terms are copied from the Articles of Confederation; had it ever been pretended that they were to be understood otherwise than as here explained?"
"It had been said, that "general welfare'' meant cases in which a general power might be exercised by Congress, without interfering with the powers of the States; and that the establishment of a National Bank was of this sort…"
"If Congress could incorporate a bank merely because the act would leave the States free to establish banks also, any other incorporations might be made by Congress. They could incorporate companies of manufacturers, or companies for cutting canals, or even religious societies, leaving similar incorporations by the States, like State Banks, to themselves. Congress might even establish religious teachers in every parish, and pay them out of the Treasury of the United States, leaving other teachers unmolested in their functions. These inadmissible consequences condemned the controverted principle."
[U. S. House Debate on creating a Bank of the United States, Feb 2, 1791]
The misuse of clause was front and center again in 1792:
"It would be absurd to say, first, that Congress may do what they please, and then that they may do this or that particular thing; after giving Congress power to raise money, and apply it to all purposes which they may pronounce necessary to the general welfare, it would be absurd, to say the least, to superadd a power to raise armies, to provide fleets,&c. In fact, the meaning of the general terms in question must either be sought in the subsequent enumeration which limits and details them, or they convert the Government from one limited, as hitherto supposed, to the enumerated powers, into a Government without any limits at all… it was always considered as clear and certain, that the old Congress was limited to the enumerated powers, and that the enumeration limited and explained the general terms." [Ibid. U. S. House Debate on Cod Fisheries, Feb 6, 1792, p.362]
Madison also mentioned the abuse in a letter to Edmund Pendleton a couple of weeks earlier:
"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, subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason, as less liable than any other to misconstruction. 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, subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason, as less liable than any other to misconstruction." [To Edmund Pendleton, Philadelphia, Jan 21, 1792, in James Madison, "Letters and other writings of James Madison Vol I." J. B. Lippencott & Co., 1867, pp. 546-547]
The agenda items that Lincoln ran on for public office were unconstitutional abuses of the general terms, from the time he first ran until his death. He convinced many people that he was operating within the limits of the constitution (still does,) when practically everything he did was a usurpation.
Mr. Kalamata
Luckily Lincoln wasn’t using the general welfare clause when he was suppressing the rebellion. He was using the authority given to him by congress when they passed the militia act of 1792. The law authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service “whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act”.
Congress was given this authority by the constitution. Section 8 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
I did take an oath to protect and defend the constitution. But America is not the constitution. The constitution is the operating system and America is the hardware. America existed prior to the Article of Confederation, existed during the Articles, continued when we transitioned from the article to the constitution, and will still exist if at some future date we adopt a new system.
As Rear Admiral Samuel Phillips Lee, cousin of Robert E. Lee, who didn’t follow the same treasonous path,said; “When I find the word Virginia in my commission, I will join the Confederacy”
Kalamata to OIFVeteran, post #649:
"There were many anti-federalists who didn't believe the Constitution provided enough protection from big-government tyrants (such as Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln turned out to be.)
The framers never envisioned a usurper could navigate past so many barriers, particularly when the powers of the federal government were distinctly listed and defined.
But slick rhetoricians, who can also act out the part of sincerity (like Clay and Lincoln,) can easily fool the masses." Kalamata's repeated insane attacks on Kentucky Senator Henry Clay (1777 - 1852), normally called "the Great Compromiser," but Dan-bo calling Clay everything from "tyrant" to "slick rhetorician" -- what in the world is that all about?
From 1803 until his death in 1852 Clay was many things -- speaker of the US House of Representatives and diplomat to France under President Madison, Secretary of State under President John Quincy Adams, originally a Jeffersonian Democrat Clay became a Whig in opposition to Andrew Jackson, several times candidate for President and influential US Senator whose work earned him the sobriquet "the Great Compromiser" -- but never President.
Young Abraham Lincoln admired Clay, calling him, "my ideal of a great man."
Many historians agree, ranking Clay among the most influential Americans never elected President.
How then does such a man merit insane hatred from Kalamata, with labels like "tyrant" and "slick rhetorician"?
Well... apparently because of what Clay called his "American System", which we can boil down to the seven words which even today drive our Democrats stark raving mad: make America great by putting Americans first.
Clay's "American System" was based on Hamilton's ideas and included three main features:
- Protective tariffs to encourage American manufacturing.
- A national bank to stabilize the economy.
- "Internal improvements" (roads, canals, harbors, etc.) to help bind the nation together economically.
While Clay was Speaker of the US House of Representatives, President Madison adopted the first two of his ideas.
The third, "internal improvements" had already been accepted in 1806 by President Jefferson, in funding the Cumberland Road, roughly today's US-40, which Clay continued to fund.
And although President Madison vetoed SC Senator Calhoun's 1817 Bonus Bill (for roads, canals & navigation improvements), on grounds of strict construction, President Monroe approved Clay's 1824 Rivers and Harbors bill.
Jefferson's 1808 Plan for Internal Improvements
And let's back up enough here to notice that every Founder, without exception wanted and supported "internal improvements", beginning with President Washington.
In 1787 Federal authority for internal improvements was proposed at the Constitution Convention, but was defeated as likely to generate too much opposition to the Constitution itself.
That's because every project (then as now) creates both supporters and opponents -- for example, a new bridge puts ferry-boat operators out of business.
So the 1787 Convention thought it best to leave such decisions to states.
But every President requested Federal money for internal improvements, including Jefferson -- ironically, after Jefferson himself had opposed Federalists projects on grounds of "strict construction", President Jefferson's own projects were opposed by Federalists on those same grounds!
Frustrated, President Jefferson proposed a constitutional amendment to authorize Federal internal improvement projects.
Jefferson's amendment was killed by Old Republican "Quid", John Randolph (who you may remember coined the term "Doughfaced northerners").
Anyway, for Madison in 1817 the issue was not just strict construction, but also "corruption," what Democrats like Kalamata decry as "crony capitalism".
But notice that all the actors then -- Calhoun, Madison & Clay -- were Democrats, and so corruption had nothing to do with party affiliation.
We should also notice that during these decades Federal government spent many millions of dollars building dozens/hundreds of forts, lighthouses, post offices, naval ships & facilities, arsenals, mints, postal roads, military cannon, hand weapons, ammunition & endless other supplies.
In all that time we can expect that everyone involved clearly understood the difference between legitimate versus illegal practices and all were subject to law enforcement.
So there is no reason for us to think that Kalamata's charge of alleged "crony capitalism" would be more or less a problem with "internal improvement" projects than with any of those others.
In short, such claims are a red herring.
And name-calling Henry Clay a "tyrant" is sheer hyperbolic nonsenses. ![]()