Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dajeeps

Teddy did not think that either. Only a novice of Roosevelt history would think so. As Beck is.


38 posted on 02/22/2010 10:10:38 PM PST by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: pissant

It seems like he certainly provided lots of answers if he didn’t think so.

I might be wrong, but it’s really hard to square what he did with another President who may have a better take on the meaning of the Constitution:

“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That “ all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition....

“To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, 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.

It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. 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. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. 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, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.” - Thomas Jefferson


40 posted on 02/22/2010 10:20:53 PM PST by dajeeps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

To: pissant

Heck just froze over. I’m on your side of an issue.

parsy, who says preach On, Brother!


48 posted on 02/22/2010 10:50:17 PM PST by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson