Posted on 12/11/2018 9:25:38 AM PST by be-baw
An Oval Office meeting with President Trump, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and presumptive incoming speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi Tuesday spiraled out of control — in Pelosi's words — over funding the border.
With a potential government shutdown looming less than two weeks away, Pelosi told Mr. Trump, "you will not win" on the border wall. The president demanded border wall funding — and said he's not afraid the shut down the government over it.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
You have no clue, clearly—so it doesn’t make sense to try to contradict me.
I do understand how the government is structured, apparently you don’t.
If you’re gonna be an arrogant sob, you might at least have something to be arrogant about. Clearly you don’t here, pal.
Maybe you are a DS Pence defender on FR, but you got no case.
Lol You’re right.
I don’t have to defend Pence or anyone else from you. You have just mooched off the site for ten years so who cares what you think you know.
5 billion for the wall, about .0012% of a 4 trillion budget. Illegals suck up about 18.5 billion a year in Medicaid alone not counting other entitlements. Nancy and chucks coin purse is being held on to much too tightly.
yea and had funds to build with, just never did, so all that money is gone like everything else we start for our good, it gets stolen by thieves of our hard earned money
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention were actually on their guard with respect to policing against unwanted means when they drafted Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
For example, delegate Benjamin Franklin had suggested adding canals for supporting commerce to Congress's Section 8, Clause 7 power to establish postal roads.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads [and Canals;]"
H O W E V E R …
Delegate Alexander Hamilton later scandalously ignored (imo) the following convention discussion concerning his unconstitutional national bank. He ignored that his fellow delegates had dropped Franklin’s suggestion for canals because some delegates felt that having such power would give Congress an excuse to establish a national bank as a means to supporting canals, delegates evidently objecting to predictable federal interference with INTRAstate banks.
“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.
Consider that the early Supreme Court wrongly decided McCulloch v. Maryland McCulloch) in Congress's favor imo, that case testing so-called banking powers in Commerce Clause.
But such a mistake would not be surprising. This is because, about two years earlier, the rookie 14th Congress had misunderstood the Founding States intentions for the General Welfare Clause, (GWC; 1.8.1), Pres. Madison clarifying in his explanation for Bonus Bill veto that GWC was intended only as an introductory clause for most of the clauses in Section 8 which were delegations of specific powers.
Veto of federal public works bill
In other words, while Congress had problems interpreting GWC as Constitutional Convention delegates had intended for it to be understood, the Court likewise had problems interpreting Section 8's "necessary and proper" clause (1.8.18) in McCulloch, inadvertently turning that clause into the "convenience" clause imo.
Hamilton gave us a national bank through entirely constitutional grounds and explained what is constitutional and what is not in his Essay on the National Bank one of the greatest state papers ever issued from one of our greatest statesmen.
Hamilton has as much right (or More) to be called “the father of the constitution” as Madison.
The first source of examining a case before the USSC is to consult the Federalist where relevant. Hamilton wrote two/thirds of these magnificent writings the greatest to come from the Western Hemisphere.
Without Hamilton the nation would likely have not survived and the National Bank was one of the principle means of ensuring that survival. His obsessive concern was that the Union be preserved and had no loyalty to a state which overrode that concern.
Jefferson was way out of his league tangling with Hamilton (the nation’s greatest lawyer) in judicial matters and Washington’s quick acceptance of his argument rather than the sophistic nonsense Jefferson wrote shows this. Of course, Washington loved Hamilton like no other man and considered him the son he never had. After Jefferson attempted to undermine the Administration while serving in it, he did not even want to hear his name.
The National Bank had nothing to do with canals and did not result in federal funding for them. The Bank was established to place the federal government on a sound financial standing and it succeeded even more brilliantly than ever imagined.
I am not a moocher, that is what I am not.
On the contrary, Hamilton played a weakness of the Constitution to justify his national bank imo, giving an unreasonably wide interpretation of the "necessary and proper" clause (1.8.18) to justify bank.
As previously mentioned, the reason that delegate Benjamin Franklin failed to get word “canals” included in postal roads clause (1.8.7) is because delegates didn’t want to give Congress an excuse to regulate INTRAstate banking.
After all, consider that ConCon delegates could have easily included the word banking in either of the Section 8 clauses, but didn't do so.
"Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
"Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
As Jefferson and Madison had indicated, wide interpretations of the "necessary" clause render the limited powers expressly delegated to Congress by the states meaningless.
After all, why expect a corrupt Congress to deal with the states for new powers in compliance with Article V, when it can simply argue that everything it does is "necessary and proper?"
In fact, Jefferson had put it this way about interpreting Section 8.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
Consider that if the Supreme Court had decided against banking powers for Congress in McCulloch v. Maryland that Congress could have successfully proposed a banking amendment to the Constitution to what was then a later generation of state legislatures, similarly as other amendments have been added to the Constitution.
Or the states could have ignoring a proposed banking amendment.
Again, the early Supreme Court naively unconstitutionally expanded the fed's powers in McCullock like the rookie Congress would have done two years earlier if it weren't for Madison's veto.
Hamilton knew more about the constitution than any man. He understood that a National Bank provided the means of carrying out specified powers. It would assist the regulation of the value of money through Market manipulation. And we are speaking of the value of foreign money as well as it was subject to fluctuation.
It would greatly improve the funding of distant military projects and make them more efficient and less costly. It helps fund the debt inevitable with war. One of the reasons the Democrats reauthorized the National Bank was the inability to fund the War of 1812.
It was a critical means of tying the wealthy classes to the Union and help avoid the civil wars incident upon Democracies. Without that unifying force the Union would fly apart from the centrifugal forces held at bay, generated by Class Warfare.
Hamilton’s system went a long way to the goal of the Constitution to “form a more perfect union.” That was the result of his genius, perhaps the greatest from our hemisphere.
I prefer to respond to threads with one or two brief points/questions so that my response can be brief. Who has time for pages and pages of complicated analysis which almost defies you to properly respond to.
Jefferson’s point was moot since the Constitution did NOT forbid a Bank.
There were more important things to concentrate on at the CC and the word “bank” would have set the anti-federalists off and made the writing much more difficult.
Had provision for a National Bank the document it might have been even beyond the Herculean effort of Hamilton to get ratification.
An understanding of the role of a National Bank was confined to Hamilton, Morse and a handful of others.
Its opposition came from those who had little and who painted it as a Monster ready to devour Liberty when in fact it was a secure support FOR Liberty.
I don’t see how he would know more. Note that Hamilton had a poor attendance record at the Constitutional Convention imo.
In fact, James Madison, Hamilton’s foe, logged the most complete record of the ConCon debates imo.
"One of the reasons the Democrats reauthorized the National Bank was the inability to fund the War of 1812."
The temporary national bank signed into law by Pres. Madison was arguably a martial law bank. If the states want a peacetime federal national bank then there’s nothing from stopping them from appropriately amending the Constitution.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids.” —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
Regarding centuries old state versus constitutionally limited federal power power struggles concerning the “necessary and proper” clause (1.8.18), consider this insight.
"It is easier to get forgiveness than it is to receive permission." —Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper, U.S. Navy's Chips Ahoy magazine (July 1986)
Hamilton was an ally of Madison when the CC was held, only after TJ’s return to the country did he fall off the wagon. H did not have to attend every session to be aware of what was going on and why. He explained what it meant in the Federalist. He also gave an all day speech unlike anyone else.
H. was a member of the Committee on Style which did the actual writing so was well aware of what was meant and what was not.
Jefferson repeatedly showed no real understanding of the constitution so I don’t care what he says. Hamilton is the ultimate authority and explained clearly what was constitutional and what is not.
A bank was clearly constitutional on several grounds. George Washington (who DID attend every session) acted promptly after receiving Hamilton’s opinion, Jefferson’s was so transparent, short-sighted and flimsy he had little choice.
The Second National Bank was established under a Jeffersonian Congress which painfully realized he was wrong in his opposition. It was chartered for 20 yrs and functioned until Jackson could destroy it (and much of the national economy.)
If it was a military operation that clearly shows both its necessity and its constitutionality. Its use in funding war was explicitly pointed out by H in his Essay. His initial belief was that it would be to costly for the Empire to fight the US but later realized that the Bank of England allowed it to handle those costs. Hence, the clearly demonstrated utility and the need for one of its own.
.
To accept Hamilton as any authority is to deny the founding of a free state, and to accept the path set out for the monarchy’s continued control.
That is the essence of this devious man.
.
Of course he can. The wall is simply an accessory part of their deployment to the border.
That is the essence of this devious man."
YES!
Hamilton’s role in the Founding and establishment of the nation was exceeded only by Washington who made him a critical ally. There was a reason that H was W’s chief aide throughout the Revolution, almost an alter ego. Read a book and discover why.
No one would have been acceptable to W who was “devious” when someone complained about H’s ambition he said that was true but it was the kind of ambition that was productive of good. Slandering the achievements of H has been consistent for 200 yrs and is the result of the lies and distortions of the Jeffersonians
For his treatment of one who was devious, see W’s treatment of TJ after his attempt to undermine the Administration.
There was no greater patriot than Alexander the Great nor was there a more far-sighted statesman than H nor one who understood the meaning of true freedom. Almost his entire life was fighting for the Union and he was critical in its founding. His truly devious enemy TJ respected him so much that he called him “a Host within himself.”
Apparently you know nothing of H if deviousness is your complaint. I can suggest many books which will allow you to understand the achievements of this remarkable man not the least of which was being the greatest political philosopher of the Western Hemisphere as the Federalist showed.
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.