Republicans Endorse Platform Language to Dismantle Most of the Federal Government*

The fact of the matter is that every time government is involved at any level, it takes a cut.

So, for example, for any Title N or whatever the number is, the federales take their administrative overhead for some reason that leads to standardization and federal jobs.

If 40-50% of actual monies needed for, say, housing programs is eaten up by bureaucracy, that leaves 60-50% that goes to the people.

We know this. We may not like to put dollars and cents to it, but the ‘salary’ + benefits of a lowly clerk to a department director of some city/county/state/federal job is actually at the largesse of the public. Not noblesse oblige, but rather, WE give boons to OUR public servants.

I have no need of warmed over Jeffersonian lies against a man who was Washington’s chief ally for 25 yrs. and one of our greatest Founders.

Washington, on the other hand, refused to allow Jefferson’s name to be uttered in his presence after his treachery became known to him.

The first class-war rhetoric was that of Jefferson, now faithfully followed by the Democrats, when he spread falsehoods about banks to rally the no-nothings and mob against them. Like The Disaster today, Jefferson’s economic ignorance practically destroyed the US economy.

Without doubt Jefferson was the most overrated president and the only thing worthwhile in his terms was a complete accident. After Livingston negotiated the Louisiana Purchase Madison had to shut Jefferson up because he did not believe it was constitutional.

He was also instrumental in the South eventually trying to destroy the Union because of his opposition to the Constitution.

I can’t help but laugh at his declaration of war against Burr, scumbag against scumbag. If you want to see an out-of-control president willing to ignore law and decency read about the trial of Burr.

If you want to know Jefferson you cannot depend on the Leftists who love him.

At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Hamilton proposed his vision for American government: a President serving for life on good behavior, Senators serving for life on good behavior, and an Assembly elected every three years. In Hamilton’s government, the President would have absolute veto, the Supreme Court would have immediate jurisdiction of all lawsuits and the Federal government would appoint the State governors.

As Treasury Secretary that Hamilton left his most disastrous mark in American history. Inspired by Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Chief Finance Minister of the “Sun King” Louis XIV, Hamilton encouraged an economic policy consisting of a central bank, government subsidization of industry and protectionist tariffs. All though Hamilton himself was probably not corrupt while at the Treasury, his actions directly led to privileged men “in the know” to enrich themselves from his policy.

Before he was defeated in a dual Hamilton referred to the Constitution as “frail and worthless”. He was bitter that the country rejected his ideas of mercantilism and an all-powerful central government and spent his last years attacking Jefferson and Jefferson’s ideas of small government mainly through the newspaper he created which is known today as the New York Post. He belittled Jefferson and others who spoke too much of liberty; pushing the idea that America should rather pattern itself after the British, French, and Spanish empires.

Historian Jeff Taylor, wrote in his book; “Where Did the Party Go?”:

“Hamilton, under the inﬂuence of the two political theorists most distasteful to Jefferson, Hobbes and Hume, was frankly the champion of the Leviathan State.”

George Will wrote: “We honor Jefferson, but live in Hamilton's country”. Leftist writer Michael Lind edited an entire book of essays celebrating this fact entitled “Hamilton's Republic”. Neocon pundit David Brooks frequently writes a New York Times or Wall Street Journal op-ed celebrating the Hamiltonian political agenda, or urging a "revival" of the Hamiltonian agenda of more and bigger government. Neocon William Kristol is also a fan of Hamilton’s political theories.

I do not assert that Hamilton came to his political and economic beliefs out of any malice toward the people of the States. I only assert that his policies were, and are, wrong and have inevitably led to the mess we have today.

“the greatest political thinker since Aristotle”

LOL

“The convention rejected the addition of anything which would prevent the discernment of implied powers or rule out their existence”

No they didn’t. You yourself go on to talk about the necessary an pepper clause. That does it, right there. And if that weren’t enough the 10th amendment spelled it out for us.

“The Constitution does NOT contain the word ‘absolutely’ in reference to ‘necessary’”

If you were paying attention you’d know that the “absolutely” point wad supposed to br in your tabor. The Constitution does indeed contain the phrase “absolutely necessary,” in Article 1, section 10 regarding a prohibition on states laying imposts and duties. Marshall used this to argue that “necessary” in “necessary and proper” meant “convenient” rather than “indispensable.”

“Hamilton destroys Jefferson’s misuse...”

Well, hoe about Madison’s? Or Edmund Randolph’s? Or anyone else who didn’t already have their mind made up that they wanted a bank.

“created a money supply where there was none”

What? Of course there was a money supply. Not a national currency, but good thing since the saying “not worth a continental” admirably summed up the efficacy of the recent misadventure in central direction of monetary policy.

“allowed the US economy to take off for the stratosphere”

Wow. I can’t really argue with that, except to say there was quite a lag between then and our historically unrivaled economic miracle. Also that by the time we competed to be the world’s foremost economic power we had no central bank. And after we got one again recessions and depressions grew worse and closer together.

Whence this notion that copious debt is a good way to build credit, or that finance must be centrally controlled to spur growth. I will admit the assumption of state debt, legal or not, was a brilliant move on Hamilton’s part. But more in a Machiavellian way than you’re thinking. Whoever held debt would be behind the new government, which helped us avoid being a banana republic. Economically and constitutionally it’s another matter.

“this is where judgement and honesty come into play”

Is it honest to say “necessary” means “convenient,” “incidental,” “useful,” or conducive to”? Is it good judgement to think the Convention either left it to common sense that there should be a central bank, or left it up to the discretion of whoever was in charge? This in a scheme of the pellet and the states sacrifing only discreet and expressed portions of their sovereignty? Is it honest to pretend a bank was necessary to handle public debt or any other power of the federal government.

By the way, if you haven’t I suggest you read Madison contra Hamilton. His Federalist essays are better, too.

Read the decision again. Checkout where they said Congress “does possess the power to foster and protect interstate commerce, and to take all measures necessary ir appropriate to that end, although intrastate transactions of interstate carriers may thereby be controlled.” There’s your interstate carriers, but there’s also “although.” Seems to me SCOTUS realized interstate carriers could be engaged in intrastate commerce. And such commerce was regulatable not because the carriers were interstate, no, but because they went against the feds’ power to foster and protect interstate commerce. Hence the “substantially related” test.

Here’s the story. The ICC set up a price control regime on interstate rail travel. Certain intrastate lines standing outside the regime “”discriminated” against interstate lines by offering lower prices. This upset the governments power to set prices, so they invented the power to regulate intrastate commerce.

Discriminatory intrastate prices were substantially related to interstate commerce be aide intrastate lines were in competition with interstate lines, not because they were set by interstate carriers. It’s as simple as that.

As for why Wickard did not upturn Shreveport, now that should be clearer. We went from the feds regulating commerce between the states to the feds fostering and protecting interstate commerce, interpreted as fostering and protecting the government’s price controls. From it having to be interstate commerce we went to it having to be commerce that is substantially related to interstate commerce, interpreted as something upsetting interstate price controls.

What was Wickard? An upholding of the AAA, which set marketing quotas and allotments for growing wheat. Which was a means of controlling supply and thereby hopefully buoying prices. A farmer bucked the system by growing his own wheat for his own farm’s consumption. Did SCOTIS misapply Shreveport as precedent in this case because the farmer was not a registered interstate wheat seller? No, because that was not the logic of Shreveport.

The logic was that certain intrastate lines were in competition with interstate commerce. The Wickard decision explicitly argues that the case against Filburn is that homegrown wheat can compete in a sense with commercial wheat. That makes it commerce, and from that point on it tending to upset the interstate wheat price control regime follows the path laid out by Shreveport and others.

So you see it is the fostering principle and the competition principle which unite Wickard and Shreveport. That’s why I say the registered carrier thing is a red herring.

James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell

13 Feb. 1829
Letters 4:14--15

For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

And from Federalist 42:

"The defect of the power in the existing confederacy, to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of these which have been clearly pointed out by experience. To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added, that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce, would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power [regulating commerce among the states] was the relief of the states which import and export through other states, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between state and state, as much be foreseen, that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter, and the consumers of the former. We may be assured, by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivance: and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably in serious interruptions of the public tranquility."

The rate schedules at issue in Shreveport appear to be very much the kind of "contrivance" Madison refers to, and effectively imposed an additional cost to interstate commerce. I can find arguable pursuit of the objectives of the original intent of the Commerce Clause in Shreveport. I can find none of it in Wickard.

Actually the words used in any document do not keep the same meanings as time goes on. Read a little Shakespeare. The meanings of the words in the Bible has produced millions of books arguing over what they mean. Hundreds of sects with differing interpretations have arisen in the last two millenia, each believing their interpretation is correct. NO one, however, understood what the constitution said and meant better than Hamilton. NO one.

While is it pleasant to believe that the words can interpret themselves, it is naive at best. But as is typical your alarm can only come about by ignoring the meaning of the last phrase “...contrary to the spirit.” One cannot make up just anything and claim that is what the document means. It cannot contradict the letter of the law or be contrary to the belief system which produced it.

Hamilton never wanted a monarch, he was one of the greatest enemies the King ever had. What he DID say was that the President’s role in our government was LIKE a monarch in that he was the executive and primarily concerned with the National interest. Our government was established with the House playing the role of the House of Commons, the Senate the counterpart of the House of Lords and the President the counterpart of the King.

Hamilton’s writings make clear that he believed the American temper was unalterably opposed to Monarchy.

It is unfortunate to see the 200+ year campaign of LIES about Hamilton, one of our greatest patriots and thinkers, still finds fertile ground among those who refuse to learn from history.

1- Hamilton’s proposals at the CC were NEGOTIATION points. He successfully pushed the final document in the direction of a stronger government. This was critical to the survival of the nation.

It also should be noted that at the CC Madison started out more Hamiltonian than Hamilton. It was HE who proposed making the states subordinate to the federal government, not Hamilton who believed they still had an important role in a federal structure though he was no friend of the inept and corrupt state governments.

2. Hamilton was NOT inspired by Colbert. He did propose to subsidize the creation of industry but that was necessary to counter the deformation of the American economy caused by prior imperialistic control of the economy. England wanted the colonies to be producers of primary goods and forbid the development of their industries. This was what needed to be rectified.

BTW the tariff enacted under Hamilton was mainly a revenue tariff only mildly protectionist. And the protective aspects were again to correct prior deformation of our economy.

3. Hamilton, at his death, was a very unhappy man. Not only was he unhappy at seeing the Liars take over because of the gullibility and stupidity of the voters but his personal life was in shambles. His eldest son had been killed by one of Burr’s vote thieves who had gone out of his way to slander his father provoking a duel. Upon Philip Hamilton’s death H.’s beautiful and talented daughter, Angelica, went insane and was mad for the rest of her life.

He foresaw the democratization which Jefferson’s victory presaged. THAT is the source of our current disaster not the brilliant and far-sighted policies of Hamilton.

4. The “Leviathan” state under Hamilton was TINY. Read a legitimate biography of Hamilton such as Forrest MacDonald’s. He also explains his financial policies and why they caused controversy (mainly because they worked against the interests of land speculators.)

5. Hamilton correctly pointed out that tyrants and demagogues are the ones who constantly spoke of “liberty”. Review the prosecution of Aaron Burr by Jefferson for an example of tyranny. You won’t believe it. I was once a great admirer of Jefferson until I actually started learning about his REAL beliefs and actions. No more.

6. The silliness of the charge of proposing a Leviathan state is clearly shown by reading what Hamilton actually wrote. Not only will you not find one word supportive of monarchy or aristocracy but you will find that Hamilton did believe that the British government combined the maximum SECURITY and FREEDOM and in NO way can be claimed to be a “Leviathan” state. It was a very haphazard affair in many ways and very inefficient.

7. Without the administration of Washington ( implementing Hamilton’s ideas) our nation probably would not have survived particularly had the Left (Jefferson) taken over immediately.

The Necessary and Proper clause (or the necessary and “pepper” clause was you term it) in NO way excludes implied powers. Quite the contrary. Nor does the 10th amendment. Both refer to ends not means.

It stand corrected about “absolutely” since it does indeed refer to revenues collected by the states for costs of inspections.

Madison merely echoed Jefferson and Randolph said nothing worthwhile about the Bank. Jefferson was the point man of the opposition.

No, there was no real money supply at the beginning of the constitutional Union. Most of our specie had been drained away by the War and was only replaced when H assumed, consolidated and sold the national debt. THAT brought gold and silver back into the economy because of the way the debt was structured.

Nor was there much of a lag between consolidation and the creation of the Bank and the economy recovering.

After the Bank’s charter expired because of Republican (Democrat) fanaticism and short-sightedness the economy went into the pits so badly that it was re-chartered later under the Democrats. However, fanaticism re-emerged under Jackson and the 2d Bank was again not re-chartered plunging the economy into the worst depression it had experienced up till that time. It took the Mexican War and the discovery of gold in California inflating the money supply to end that depression.

We had plenty of recessions, and booms when there was no central bank. It cannot prevent either only ameliorate their severity with the proper actions.

Hamilton’s writings are copious and rarely did any of his opponents dare to go up against him one on one. When they did they inevitably came up with the short side of the stick. Madison included. He never dared to do so again after the Pacificus-Helvidius essays. Jefferson begged him to write them to aid his beloved French Revolution which was busy cutting of the heads or imprisoning those who had assisted the American Revolution. Like Hamilton’s great friend, Lafayette.

Some of your statements are marred by misspellings which make them incomprehensible. If they are important resubmit the corrected versions for my response.

Norman Dong photo of norman wong In April 2012, Norman Dong joined the Office of Federal Financial Management within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as the Deputy Controller. As Deputy Controller, Mr. Dong is responsible for helping coordinate OMB’s efforts to initiate government-wide improvements in all areas of financial management, including financial reporting, improper payments, open government, and real property management.

Prior to joining OMB, Mr. Dong served as the Chief Financial Officer of Federal Emergency Management Agency within the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Dong has significant experience in all levels of government. In the District of Columbia he served as Deputy Mayor for Operations and City Administrator under Mayor Anthony A. Williams. He re-established control of city operations from the Financial Control Board and led the effort to achieve visible service improvements during the Administration’s first year in office. He also strengthened the District’s strategic planning process by linking agency performance expectations with the annual budget cycle and an evaluation process for agency directors.

Mr. Dong held various positions within District government since he first began as Director of the Office of Grants Management in 1996. As Chief of Staff in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, he helped manage a citywide effort to achieve a balanced budget and obtain a clean audit opinion for the District. Mr. Dong also served as Special Assistant for Policy Development and Research for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and as a primary aide for finance and accounting in the Office of the State Comptroller in Connecticut.

He holds a Bachelor’s degree from Yale University and a Master’s degree from the Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government. He currently resides in Washington, D.C., with his wife and two sons.

Looks like a bunch of busy work to me.

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.