Posted on 07/07/2011 4:14:58 AM PDT by Kaslin
"When the chief justice read me the oath," President Franklin D. Roosevelt said to a speechwriter, "and came to the words 'support the Constitution of the United States,' I felt like saying: 'Yes, but it's the Constitution as I understand it, flexible enough to meet any new problem of democracy -- not the kind of Constitution your court has raised up as a barrier to progress and democracy.'"
FDR's statement vividly illustrates the Big Divide between (most) Republicans and Democrats, free marketers and collectivists, Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman. It's the line separating those who believe in the power of individuals from those who believe in the power of government -- so long as they're the ones in power. It's the line that separates those who believe in the welfare state from those who not only believe that the federal government recklessly spends more than it takes in, but also spends it on things not permitted by the Constitution -- and the country is worse off for having done so.
This is the tea party message (to the consternation of Democrats and squishy Republicans): The Constitution means what it says and says what it means. All this Constitution talk produces the inevitable backlash. Joy Behar, the learned Constitutional scholar, asked, "Do you think this Constitution-loving is getting out of hand?"
A Los Angeles Times columnist and I sat on a panel to analyze President Barack Obama's last State of the Union speech. What, I asked, gives the President authority to place health care under the command and control of the federal government? She replied, that part of the Constitution that says to provide for the domestic tranquility.
She refers to a part of the preamble to the Constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility ... establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Many members of this "living, breathing" Constitution school claim authority for things like ObamaCare resides in the "promote the general welfare" part of the preamble. Using the "domestic tranquility" part was a first.
The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, anticipated the preamble-gives-government-permission-to-do-all-sorts-of-things-for-which-it-lacks-authority argument. In 1794, Congress appropriated money for charitable purposes. An incensed Madison said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
Time Magazine's recent Constitution cover story asks: "Does It Still Matter?" Its answer? Well, yeah, it sort of does, but then again, you know, not so much. After all, the Founding Fathers could neither foresee computers nor Twitter nor predict that Rep. Anthony Weiner would use both to implode his career. So, really, in the modern day, what's the relevance of the old document crafted by well-to-do, slave-owning white males?
As the federal government got bigger over the next 200 years, and assumed responsibilities the Founding Fathers considered the job of individuals, families and communities -- or of the separate states -- Madison's position withered. It's now fighting for its life.
Soon, the 50 percent of voters who pay little or no taxes will march into the polling booth, many pulling levers, pushing buttons and punching chads to vote themselves a raise -- at somebody's else's expense. If the Supreme Court permits the ObamaCare mandate, anything goes.
Constitution-shredders point not to our bloated federal government, the entitlement mentality or to the desire of politicians on both sides to promise things that the Founders feared would eventually produce an electorate with little or no financial skin in the game. No, the real villain is the dastardly Bush tax cuts! If only they had not been enacted, they tell us!
Why not blame the tax cuts signed by other presidents? President John Kennedy's plan reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. President Ronald Reagan reduced the top marginal tax rate from 70 to 28 percent. President George W. Bush, by contrast, reduced the top rate from 39.6 to 35 percent, making him Scrooge-like in comparison.
The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" says the two Bush tax cuts, in 2001 and 2003, "cost" $2.8 trillion over 10 years (an average of $280 billion per year). In the last two and a half years alone, Obama has presided over the addition of almost $4 trillion in new debt, and this year's deficit is an estimated $1.6 trillion.
Besides, liberals like the Bush tax cuts -- at least for the lower 98 percent of workers. Since most Democrats want to preserve the Bush-era tax rates for all but the top 2 percent, the objectionable "cost" of the cuts becomes even more inconsequential to dealing with budget, deficit and debt problems.
So now what? We drifted away from the Constitution in fits and starts. It is how we must return to it. Voters must remember who talked the talk and walked the walk. This is a time when we change course, when people rediscover American exceptionalism and the wisdom of the Constitution and say, "Enough."
If not, Greece awaits.
OK, here is somewhat of a summary.
There are those who say the Articles were replaced... they are wrong.
Congress under the new Constitution authorized the collection and printing of all the laws. These are printed in the United States Statutes at Large.
The first volume was published about 1847 and includes all the laws passed by the Congressional sessions up till then and the basic laws of the United States.
Pages 1-3 have the Declaration of Independence.
Pages 10-22 have the Constitution of the United States.
Pages 4-9 have the Articles of Confederation.
The Constitution created a “more perfect union”, a POLITICAL entity that would come to be called “The United States”.
The split - the actual division - was investigated and defined in the early 1900’s in a series of decisions called the Insular cases that came before the Supreme Court.
Part of those decisions answered the question What is “The United States”.
They ruled there are three definitions. “United States” can mean:
The original Union formed of 13 (now 50) sovereign states
The national government, the ten sq miles over which Congress exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction
The geographical United States, as it would be used by a person say in Europe who says “I’m going to the United States on holiday”
Now. These might seem trivial distinctions. Far from it. The insular decisions were questions basically about things going on in the territories, not the states. And the questions were can Congress legislate in an obviously unconstitutional manner for things happening in the territories.
The Supreme Court said... yes.
Congress IS NOT CONSTRAINED by the Constitution in legislating for things that happen in DC or the territories because THEY ARE NOT A PARTY OR PART OF THE UNION. This is why it takes legislation or Supreme Court decisions to “incorporate” various things to be effective in DC, like the Heller decision. Even today I believe you can get arrested in DC for distributing handbills on the street.
Further proof comes in the citizenship decisions, where it was ruled that it is not necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States to be a Citizen of a state.
We still have the Union... barely...
This kind of thing is why I have no respect for you at all. I respect many freepers with whom I regularly debate. But I don't respect you at all. You don't warrant it.
Interesting points. One quibble--The union was already called the United States under the Articles of Confederation.
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
The whole perpetual union/more perfect union debates are pretty interesting. You can't get through the secession period leading to the civil war without encountering it. The Webster-Hayne debate is, iirc, the definitive presentation of the arguments.
The distinction between states and territories was also a big factor in the controversy surrounding the expansion of slavery. The anti-slavery forces used the distinction you cite to justify using federal power to prevent expansion of slavery wherever possible. That, of course, led eventually to civil war.
As if I care. You however are a cheap shot artist for whom I have no respect.
You once said you had no time for a vanity to defend the Articles. Baloney. You have all the time in the world to crap daily on our beloved Constitution.
From the Articles of Confederation:
“Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
Are you telling me the Confederate Congress exercised no power beyond those delegated?
I’ve always found it interesting that people still think the Civil war was about slavery. In a sense, it was. But not the sense most believe.
Under the Northwest Ordinance, slavery was prohibited in the new ten States that were to be formed out of the northwest territories, and the Northwest Ordinance was an act of the Continental Congress, so slavery was already on it’s way out.
But I believe the north recognized that the cost benefits of slavery for agriculture and the growing (still in it’s infancy) industrialization of the south, combined with the south’s natural seaports and access would basically put the north out of business.
The problem being that the Civil War and subsequent reconstruction established the national United States as principal rather than as agents of the States.
And yes, you are correct that the phrase “United States” was recognized by the Confederacy.
What is the alternative?
All well and good, expect that the slave states and their Calhounist politicians didn’t except the federal authority to limit the expansion of slavery. They forced the issue. But seriously, let’s not make this a civil war thread. I agree that the north did not enter into war to end slavery. But the political controversies surrounding slavery were the cause of the war.
except= accept.
I don't have a new design for you, but I'd love to read white papers from Heritage, Cato, et al on the question. It's just that the question doesn't even get asked.
Off the top of my head, subdivide the nation into 6 or 7 districts that have reasonably similar cultures--Northeast, Southeast, Southwest, Mountain, Plains, Midwest, West Coast. Randomly select a state from each region each term to appoint a judge. Let those 7 judges decide constitutional questions for that term. Reappoint judges each term, with required rotation in office.
That would be your supreme court, and only that court would have jurisdiction over constitutional questions.
It’s all very interesting and I wish I knew more about it.
And I agree this is not a civil war thread.
But there are questions that arise that are even now pertinent. Was the South justified in trying to defend their rights? Remember, even the right to own slaves was recognized in the original Constitution.
That fact shows the tenuous nature of the original agreement, and why the newly formed “United States” under the Constitution was very, very hesitant to regulate things in the states beyond the original enumerated powers.
I’m not defending slavery in any way, but it’s almost as if the civil war was not fought over that issue, it would have been another issue... say, for instance, some states that want Obamacare versus other states that don’t want it.
It may very well be that local needs end up trumping federal power. I know there has been movement in the fed arena to register all farm animals. That might work in the Bronx, but can they ENFORCE it in Montana?
Anytime you “apply power”, that event gets up being assessed in public eyes. And the public perception of whether or not it was justified or done in the correct way or fair manner all play into how well it works. If the federal government does things in a bad or unpopular way, they lose support. And “support” means in those terms mostly political donations.
Given those social dynamics, I think the Constitution is doomed. Because I don’t think the people will understand their rights and make a universal call for those rights until it’s too late.
Throughout history, it has been a constant battle between those forces. Consolidation of power, and the rights of the people.
If there is one thing I will say in our favor, it’s that Americans won’t put up with it!
;-)
So why won't you answer my simple query in #45 about the Confederacy, the form of government you admire?
I've asked him the same for years.
Because as I’ve already said, I don’t respect you.
The Declaration says any time a governemnt is destructive to the ends...etc etc...that people have the right to alter or abolish it. The south had a natural right to want out. But it was not constitutional. They would have to fight for it. Those states were renegging on their ratification of the Constitution, which bound them to the union.
At the same time, the North was justified in fighting to preserve the union and prevent the secession of the slave states. They were upholding the supremacy of the Constitution.
I don't have much respect for the South though. Slavery was their primary cause, and even worse, the government they created wasn't even a confederacy. It was a consolidated republic pretty much as bad as ours.
It’s so funny how you keep trying to change the subject. Quite telling. The rest of it-—calling me chicken—is just more of your usual childish nonsense. It’s a big reason why my regard for you is so low.
I asked you a straightforward question re Article II and enumerated/delegated powers, which you brought up, but as usual, would not defend.
You are the one who tries to turn it into a flame war. The immature trolling you and your kind engage in is a nuisance on this forum, the same way that black flies are a nuisance during Springtime in the Adirondacks. But that's life. We tolerate pests and continue to enjoy life.
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.