The 'F'-word

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | Sunday, June 22, 2003 | Colin McNickle

[Willie Green]

Strong and precise words are required to editorialize on purulent politics and malefic maladministration.

A few years back, the maladministration of Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy cried "Foul!" when we described as "fascistic" its failed policy of command economics that relied so heavily on the high-held shillelagh threatening eminent domain.

[Willie Green]

"We are infinitely better off without treaties of commerce with any nation."

--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1815.

The First Federal Revenue Law

On April 8, James Madison, once again a congressman from Virginia, addressed the House. He went right to the point. Congress, he said, must "remedy the evil" of "the deficiency in our Treasury." He argued that "[a] national revenue must be obtained," but not in a way "oppressive to our constituents." He then proposed that the House adopt legislation, virtually identical to the unimplemented Confederation tariff, imposing a five-percent tariff on all imports,

Congressman John Laurence of New York supported Madison's proposal, arguing that "the more simple a plan of revenue is, the easier it becomes understood and executed." Madison elaborated. A single, uniform tariff, he insisted, had two advantages. First, it could be imposed quickly, which was important because "the prospect of our harvest from the Spring importations is daily vanishing." Second, it was consistent with the principles of free trade ("commercial shackles," he said, "are generally unjust, oppressive, and impolitic")

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

""We are infinitely better off without treaties of commerce with any nation.""

Yet there they are in constitution. Even the democrats back them were protectionists at the expense of their countrymen.

[martin_fierro]

A few years back, the maladministration of Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy cried "Foul!" when we described as "fascistic" its failed policy of command economics that relied so heavily on the high-held shillelagh threatening eminent domain.

Damn, that's good.

[Willie Green]

Yet there they are in constitution.

No they aren't.

[Snuffington]

Back in 1994, Loyola College economics professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo wrote an incredibly accessible essay on this very topic...

Why do I get the feeling this was something about Abraham Lincoln being a fascist?

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

"No they aren't."

You must be reading a different constitution than me . . . Or you just can't read.

[Willie Green]

Show me where the Constitution specificly mentions "treaties of commerce".

[GladesGuru]

Fascist is as fascist does.

When DiLorenzo identifies and defines fascism, one may safely assume that definition to be valid.

Thanks for posting that article, I enjoyed it.

[StriperSniper]

ECONOMIC FASCISM by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

"Show me where the Constitution specificly mentions "treaties of commerce"."

I'll show you where it mentions treaties. Then I'll leave it up to you to show me where it prohibits treaties of commerce. In fact, I'll show you where it mentions both treaties and commence. The rest of this bad dream is up to you. I don't really think you want to go there.

[Straight Vermonter]

If you all haven't read this you are missing out.

None Dare Call it Fascism

[Willie Green]

I'll show you where it mentions treaties. Then I'll leave it up to you to show me where it prohibits treaties of commerce.

I never made such a claim.
But by retreating to the more generic reference to "treaties", you've failed to substantiate your premise.
It's actually a rather minor point compared to your non sequitur statement regarding protectionists.

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

"But by retreating to the more generic reference to "treaties", you've failed to substantiate your premise."

You didn't finish my quote. I mentioned I could point out both treaties and commerce being mentioned in the constitution. Where's the beef?

[Sonny M]

No they aren't.

Sorry to break it to you, but take a look at article VI, second paragraph

"and all treaties or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby,

[Sonny M]

Show me where the Constitution specificly mentions "treaties of commerce".

Article I, section 8

"To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states and with the indian tribes.

These are enumerated as powers granted to congress.

[Sonny M]

I mentioned I could point out both treaties and commerce being mentioned in the constitution.

There are 2 distict parts of the constitution that gives these powers. Article I section 8, and article VI. Its actually very explicit, the founders apparently didn't want people thinking this was some "living breathing" thing.

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

"There are 2 distict parts of the constitution that gives these powers. Article I section 8, and article VI. Its actually very explicit, the founders apparently didn't want people thinking this was some "living breathing" thing."

Two distinct and yet complimentary sections of the constitution. Actually, each stands on its own merits. Its is unquestionable that the Senate, working with the exectutive branch, has the power to ratify treaties among the several nations, of which you would be hard pressed to show us one that didn't involve what the law now considers commerce.

No living breathing issue here. Its all about literal interpretation of the constitution. I think it deserves that type of respect.

[Willie Green]

These are enumerated as powers granted to congress.

The power to negotiate treaties is delegated to the Executive Branch, Sonny, not the Legislative Branch.

[Willie Green]

"and all treaties or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby,

You should be more careful as to how you parse the Constitution.
The term "treaties" is contained in a subordinate clause.
A subordinate clause is usually introduced by a subordinating element such as a subordinating conjunction or relative pronoun. It depends on the rest of the sentence for its meaning. It does not express a complete thought, so it does not stand alone. It must always be attached to a main clause that completes the meaning.

Your reference is best quoted from the beginning of the sentence, so as to include the actual subject.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;"

It is the the Constitutution that is the supreme law of the land, NOT "treaties" as your excerpt would imply. Treaties and laws passed by Congress are subordinate to the Constitution, as decided by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803):

"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."