James Madison: Savannah port funding by feds is unconstitutional
When the U.S. House convenes next month under GOP leadership, one of its first pieces of business will be the reading aloud of the U.S. Constitution. In addition, every bill introduced in the House will be required to cite the specific provision of the Constitution that allows Congress to pass such a law.
The goal, Republicans say, is to remind our elected officials that under the Constitution, the powers of the federal government are to be “few and defined,” as James Madison put it.
That proper division of powers between state and federal authorities will be a recurring theme in the 2011 General Assembly as well. Republican leaders in Georgia, including Gov.-elect Nathan Deal, say they are intent on reasserting the rightful, constitutional role of states against an overly intrusive federal government.
In case you’re not getting the message, Republicans are serious about the Constitution. Unlike the Democrats, who treat the nation’s founding document as a mere series of suggestions, Republicans see the Constitution as sacred writ to be followed as originally intended.
Except, not really. Not when put to the test.
For example, the top priority of Georgia’s political and business establishment in the upcoming Congress is to acquire at least $400 million in federal funds to deepen Savannah’s port. With bigger cargo ships coming on line by 2015, the project is critical to expanding Georgia’s role in global shipping. State Republican leaders take the project so seriously that they have even recruited Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed to serve as an emissary to the Obama administration to help get the project funded.
But strictly interpreted, the Constitution does not allow the federal government to spend money on such projects, a fact that was a recurring feature of political debate in the early days of our republic.
In 1822, for example, President James Monroe vetoed a bill funding road construction and repair. The Constitution, he wrote, gives the federal government no authority to fund such “internal improvements,” which instead were traditionally funded by states or private investors.
In 1831, President Andrew Jackson issued a similar veto. “If it be the wish of the people that the construction of roads and canals should be conducted by the federal government,” he wrote, they must amend the Constitution to allow it.
However, the most telling testimony comes from the man cited so often as a champion of limited federal power. In 1817, President Madison, “the Father of the Constitution,” vetoed a major public works bill.
Even though he recognized “the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses,” Madison wrote, “the legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers.”
In other words, if deepening the Savannah River is as important to Georgia as our state leaders claim — and it probably is — then a strict, Madisonian reading of the Constitution requires that the taxpayers of Georgia pay for the project.
And if state leaders are serious about independence from federal intrusion, if their talk about enumerated powers is more than mere bluster designed for partisan advantage, they will cease petitioning Washington and appropriate the money themselves.
On the other hand, if they fail to do so, if instead they press ahead with demands that federal taxpayers foot the bill, they will in effect be acknowledging what they claim to reject, that time and necessity have quietly altered the meaning of Madison’s Constitution, and that their protestations to the contrary are mere cynical theater.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
383 comments Add your comment
Southern Comfort
December 28th, 2010
9:40 am
Where are the “peace” activists, SoCo? Where are the protests?
Wassamatta? Your google broken??
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090825/NEWS/908250319
CHILMARK — On his first official vacation since taking office, President Barack Obama has tried to leave his work at home. So some demonstrators are bringing the issues to him.
Noted war protester Cindy Sheehan is scheduled to arrive today on Martha’s Vineyard to hold a series of peace vigils and other events to confront the president about the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I even did a google search for war protests 2010 for you. Here’s the results if you care to take a peek. The search resulted in About 10,300,000 results (0.27 seconds)
Granny Godzilla
December 28th, 2010
9:41 am
Lil Barry
It’s a wonder you never saw any talk about speculators.
A bright guy like you and all…
TaxPayer
December 28th, 2010
9:42 am
Lil Barry,
Contrary to your unfounded assertion, I did not vote for an idiot messiah.
Lil' Barry Bailout
December 28th, 2010
9:44 am
All wars are “wars of choice”. We chose to go into Iraq to form a less threatening, more democratic country in the heart of the Middle East. “Mission accomplished”, thanks to our President Bush and the troops.
Let’s hope the Idiot Messiah gets to hang a banner too.
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
9:44 am
Mary Elizabeth
December 28th, 2010
9:29 am
————————-
Fear not, many liberals live in the ‘conservative’
or red states. LBJ was from Texas. Albert Gore Sr.
from Tennessee. MLK from Georgia. Clinton from Arkansas.
Besides I would not put much import on any prognostication
from Russia.
Dave R.
December 28th, 2010
9:45 am
“But strictly interpreted, the Constitution does not allow the federal government to spend money on such projects,”
Agreed.
Neither does it allow the Feds to provide Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, etc, etc, etc, yet you are strangely in favor of all those things; because you “interpret” the Constitution any way you can to move your Socialist agenda forward.
Jay, you’re the LAST person who should be throwing the Constitution in the face of – anybody.
Lil' Barry Bailout
December 28th, 2010
9:45 am
That’s sort of the point, SoCo, back in the good ol’ days, you didn’t have to use Google to find the protest.
It was never about peace.
Granny Godzilla
December 28th, 2010
9:47 am
Barry
It was always about peace…..again look to the media.
Bob
December 28th, 2010
9:47 am
For once I actually agree with Jay Bookman. The world is coming to an end.
nation of wussies
December 28th, 2010
9:48 am
bring back gitmo and wiretaps!
Lil' Barry Bailout
December 28th, 2010
9:49 am
Gitmo and wiretaps? They never left!
Southern Comfort
December 28th, 2010
9:52 am
LBB
It’s out there if you want to see it. If you don’t want to see it, you never will. It’s no different than the Tea Party. When the protests first started, you couldn’t flip a channel without seeing them. Now that you don’t see them all the time on tv, does that mean that they’ve also gone away?
Normal
December 28th, 2010
9:53 am
Interesting article…
Harvard Business School Dean Nitin Nohria worries that the trend could be dangerous. In an article in the November issue of the Harvard Business Review, he says that if U.S. businesses keep prospering while Americans are struggling, business leaders will lose legitimacy in society. He exhorted business leaders to find a way to link growth with job creation at home.
Other economists, like Columbia University’s Sachs, say multinational corporations have no choice, especially now that the quality of the global work force has improved. Sachs points out that the U.S. is falling in most global rankings for higher education while others are rising.
“We are not fulfilling the educational needs of our young people,” says Sachs. “In a globalized world, there are serious consequences to that.”
So wahat IS the GOP thinking when they keep wanting to cut education?
http://www.ajc.com/business/where-are-the-jobs-789307.html
Lil' Barry Bailout
December 28th, 2010
9:53 am
Perhaps this would be a good time to get back on topic!
I’ll do my part as I have to go do something else this morning besides chat here.
Mary Elizabeth
December 28th, 2010
9:53 am
barking frog @ 9:44
I know, barking frog, I was just being a little playful this a.m.
In fact, labels are misleading because they cannot capture the “whole” and tend to divide. I have conservative thoughts, liberal thoughts, and many thought in between both categories, in truth.
I believe many Southerners have that in common with me. However, when local norms become oppressive, as in Jim Crow, it is more difficult for the autonomy of individuals to be expressed. I did not find that true in NYC. That is why I am so suspicious of the quest for more states’ rights
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
9:54 am
The war in Afghanistan is the stupidest adventure the
US has ever been involved in. That is precisely why the
President chose it to destroy Petraeus. No way to
win and the General is blamed. McChrystal took the
easy way out and helped shaft Petraeus on his way
out the door.
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
9:57 am
Mary Elizabeth
December 28th, 2010
9:53 am
————————————————
I totally agree on ‘labeling’ and I would advocate
that governments have no rights only people do.
stands for decibels
December 28th, 2010
9:59 am
This Week on ABC lists the names, rank, hometowns and ages of all soldiers who are kia the week before.
As has the PBS NewsHour on any given weekday evening, as these soldiers’ names are released to the public. Which has been, in our household, a moment-of-silence time whenever we’ve seen them, all these very long years.
paleo-neo-Carlinist aka Joe the Plutocrat
December 28th, 2010
10:00 am
Lil’ Barry bailout, here’s a riddle for you; if an anti-war protest occurs, but Lil’ Barry Bailout doesn’t hear it, does it exist? in fact, were I a real “plutocracy in action” wag, I’d suggest you ask yourself why? FauxNews and MainStreamNBC are not reporting this. could it be (prepare yourself, a “Godfather” quote is coming), like Sen. Geary and Michael Corleone; the media and government at “…both part of the same hypocrisy” (aka PLUTOCRACY). it’s all just DC horse trading; you repeal DADT and I’ll extend the Bush tax cuts. you give me (toothless) healthcare reform and I’ll “surge” in AfPak. you know anything about horses? well, we the People don’t “own” the horses being traded. we’re merely the stable hands. that is to say, we ‘feed’ the horses and we cleand the stalls when the horse is traded to another owner.
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
10:04 am
The same percentage of troops killed in Iraq and
Afghanistan, had they been stationed in the US,
would probably have died in accidents on US
highways. This is truly a tragedy.
Mary Elizabeth
December 28th, 2010
10:05 am
barking frog @ 9:57
True, people have rights over government. The purpose of government is to serve the people. If the spirits of people were as evolved as they were capable of being, there would be no need for government. In the meantime, government is best that best serves the people.
The U.S. government could be a role model for the world if it would lead others in seizing upon the coming age of egalitarian humanity. For an expansion of this idea, see my blog at http://www.maryelizabethsings.wordpress.com.
Normal
December 28th, 2010
10:06 am
Barry,
By invading Iraq for no apparent reason other than he wanted to, GWB has put the world on the slippery edge of a cliff. We will never be able to leave Iraq because if we do, Iran will take Iraq and form a United Nation of Islam which will then take Kuwait and threaten Saudi Arabia. With control over all that oil, battlefield nukes and the will to use them, we would never be able to contain them, much less win a war there. We might win the war nuke for nuke, but radiated oil isn’t going to do us much good…unless someone invents a small reactor for vehicles. I could go on but, bottom line, GWB screwed the pooch and he screwed us royally. One day our grandkids will thank us for that.
TGT
December 28th, 2010
10:06 am
Department of Transportation: A History of Growth
@@
December 28th, 2010
10:11 am
Maybe if the feds returned all of the tax dollars we send to them we could fund the project.
Better yet, use what would normally go to the feds to fund projects that directly impact the states. Let the feds have the leftovers.
Matti
December 28th, 2010
10:13 am
Joe the Plutocrat,
Do you mind if I quote you? Your metaphors are spot on.
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
10:17 am
Mary Elizabeth
December 28th, 2010
10:05 am
——————————————
The US is the example for the world, for good or bad.
However we need to learn that egality cannot be delivered
at the point of a gun. If we are going to take what we need,
we should just do it, and come home.
AmVet
December 28th, 2010
10:20 am
GWB II, STOP THE WAR.
And for gawdsakes American people, do not EVER again let neo-cons and their cowardly chickenhawk enablers have anything to do with decisions regarding the Unites states Armed Forces…
retired early
December 28th, 2010
10:21 am
All citizens of Georgia should be aware of the following:
An auditor working in our Savannah office discovered in the early 1990s that shipping companies coming to the Savannah Ports were not paying the “use tax” due to the state of “first entry” to the USA. His “test” audit was against Chiquita Bananas. The audit was for 4 million dollars covering about a 4 year period. Chiquita used it’s political muscle to stall while appealing the audit. Then Revenue commissioner, Jerry Jackson, played along, long enough for the Georgia Legislature to change the “use tax” law to exempt all shipping containers coming into Ga ports. La, Ala and SC also have this same use tax. When Chiquita was previously audited in those states, the company moved from state to state before landing in Ga. These states still, last I am aware of, collect this use tax.
Although changing the use law cannot be made retroactive, Chiquita never paid a dime. Jerry Jackson, writing in behalf of Chiquita, yes, you read that right, argued that the law could be interperted as retroactive. Jackson was overruled by our Attorney General who rebuffed Jackson’ logic and demanded that the 4 million assessment be collected.
A few months later, Our Sav office received the original Tax lien stamped “withdrawn and Cancelled”…signed by guess who…Commissioner Jerry Jackson.
Think about all the tax money lost because these politicians. Certainly a billion or more. Now, the companies pay nothing to this state but we are willing to pay 400 million to- further- deepen our harbor without any help from the very companies that benefit the most.
This story is even better than I could tell it here. Most of it is Public record.
TaxPayer
December 28th, 2010
10:22 am
Corporate profits are up. Stock prices are up. So why isn’t anyone hiring?
Actually, many American companies are – just maybe not in your town. They’re hiring overseas, where sales are surging and the pipeline of orders is fat.
We just have not given them a big enough tax cut.
Mary Elizabeth
December 28th, 2010
10:25 am
barking frog @ 10:17
“we need to learn that egality cannot be delivered at the point of a gun.”
How well I agree with that.
Please read my blog’s new year’s post entitled, “A New Year: A Budding World Consciousness,”
found at “Mary Elizabeth Sings,” for an expansion of that thought. I present George Washington’s modeling for America’s future leaders through his deliberate choices in his actions.
Adam
December 28th, 2010
10:26 am
Jay, it’s just another case of them being talkers more than doers. They can talk a big game about how important it is to stick with the Constitution, but when there are funds available it doesn’t matter where they come from, be it the federal government or blood diamond money, they will take advantage of it. All the while they will be talking about changing things and making sure everything is constitutional.
GOP: Do what I say, not what I do.
A private sector employee
December 28th, 2010
10:28 am
Actually, a lot of folks here are correct. The Federal government is NOT empowered by the Constitution to make Georgia more competitive… to deepen the port in Savannah. The Feds should not be allowed to pick and choose winners and losers in this battle. OTOH, they should not be allowed to collect the taxes that they do in order to be able to dole them out … picking those winners and losers using the taxes collected from all.
Sorry, but there is no hypocrisy here. I will say that until the FEDERAL government stops taking our tax dollars at the force of a gun (don’t pay your taxes. See how long it takes a federal representative and law enforcement… with a gun… to show up at your door), it is up to our elected officials to get as much of our tax dollars back as they can. The Feds divvy up about $200 BILLION in funds taken from all citizens in all states. To suggest that is is hypocrisy to try to get some of it back simply because it is not authorized in the Constitution (neither is the taking in the first place!) is stupid.
paleo-neo-Carlinist aka Joe the Plutocrat
December 28th, 2010
10:29 am
Adam, or in some instances (gay Republican lawmakers); do who I say, not who I do.
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 28th, 2010
10:30 am
Lil’ Barry Bailout@9:17 am
There’s no need for the US to split up. Just have everyone sign up for the Libbtard Plan or the Conservative Plan. Libbtards pay the tax rates necessary to fund libbtard programs, likewise for Conservatives. Switching plans would be no problem, since libbtards just want to help people, and conservatives welcome anyone willing to pull their weight.
——————————————-
progressives are more for clean air and water something the regressives are against. I hope YOU like buying it from progressives.
james
December 28th, 2010
10:30 am
barking frog- and a pound (no pun intended) of flesh to go with it-
JohnnyReb
December 28th, 2010
10:31 am
I suggest Progressives like Jay and others turn their attention away from mocking Republicans to troubles ahead. Califorina, Illinois, and New York are almost bankrupt and will be coming to Congress soon asking for a bailout (pray they don’t get it). There is a nationwide gap between public employee pension obligations and funds available to pay of between 1.8 to 3.4 trillion dollars. Progressives bathing in recent Obama victories handed him by weak Republican leadership need a cold shower. There remains very tuff times and decisions ahead, least of which is whether Federal dollars we don’t have go to the Savannah port project.
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 28th, 2010
10:36 am
JohnnyReb@10:31 am
They can have our Bailout. His name is Lil’Barry LMAO
Del
December 28th, 2010
10:37 am
Well I see the left wing babble continues through the holiday season into and undoubtedly through 011. GWB, Iraq, corporate greed and the diabolical GOP. Have a great day blogging got some errands to run.
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 28th, 2010
10:39 am
Sorry to say we may be in Afghan. a while longer. If we have to protect the mining and pipeline interests from the Taliban we will be. Maybe we can make a profit on it. Turn it over to Cheney he can do it if anyone can.
Adam
December 28th, 2010
10:43 am
JohnnyReb: Progressives bathing in recent Obama victories handed him by weak Republican leadership need a cold shower
But I thought Obama was the one who was the weak leader? He somehow got 6-11 Republicans on board with some major legislative pieces in the lame duck session, but surely that means he is still a bad leader… right? right?
Adam
December 28th, 2010
10:46 am
Del: Well, if you’re going to be the party of fiscal responsibility (we mean it this time!) and the party of no flip-flopping (forget that guy McCain…) then you kind of have to put up or shut up. Or just don’t put up and instead put up WITH the criticism you get for being the abusive lover that makes promises and just does the same old thing over and over.
Skip
December 28th, 2010
10:47 am
Stop the madness, you got any idea what damage will be done to the beach at Tybee?
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
10:47 am
james
December 28th, 2010
10:30 am
————————
Unfortunately.
MPercy
December 28th, 2010
10:48 am
BULLSEYE @9:19 am Grunt, Jawja takes in 1.01 of every 1.00 “sent to the Feds”
Just another socialist loving Red State.
That was true in 2005 (the latest year for which I can find data), but not for most of the last 20 years.
For most of the 80’s and 90’s GA was easily a net payer, receiving 97 cents on the dollar, and in 1990 and 91, only about 92 cents. GA’s recent net numbers look like (dollars received for dollars paid)
2000 $1.00
2001 $1.02
2002 $1.02
2003 $0.98
2004 $0.98
2005 $1.01
GA has been essentially a break-even state over the last 30 years or so.
JohnnyReb
December 28th, 2010
10:49 am
Adam, just because Republicans made a deal when they should not, does not mean Obama is not weak. You can flip a coin to see which ones are the most stupid, not which ones are intelligent.
josef nix
December 28th, 2010
10:49 am
The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. Andy Jackson said the Supreme Court Ruled, now let’s see them enforce it. Abraham Lincoln said “there is a higher law than the Constitution.” The latter two won out. So, does it really matter anymore?
Bill
December 28th, 2010
10:50 am
Your point is well taken. There is one problem. When the founding fathers wrote the powers of the federal government are to be “few and defined” they expected the fed’s to follow that rule not, over the years, grab all the power they could and take the money from the states necessary to fund their lust for that power. The $400 million Georgia needs to deepen Savannah’s port was stolen by the fed’s, how do you suggest we get it back?
Moderate Line
December 28th, 2010
10:51 am
On the other hand, if they fail to do so, if instead they press ahead with demands that federal taxpayers foot the bill, they will in effect be acknowledging what they claim to reject, that time and necessity have quietly altered the meaning of Madison’s Constitution, and that their protestations to the contrary are mere cynical theater
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Unfortunately or fortunately, James Madison doesn’t get define what the constitution.. The Supreme court as 1824 decided that the states have little authority over navigable waterways. Jay point that the state should pay in accordance with Madison’s philosophy, however, that would also mean that the state could tax the goods coming into the port and regulate what came in. Anyone with a knowledge of the articles of confederation and early history of the United States remembers the problems with the 13 states acting as independent states in regards to international commerce.
Jay’s argument would be more appropriate in regards to the millions of dollars spent on airports but on the ports I believe it has been long establish that this a purview of the federal government.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Navigable+Waters
The basis for federal jurisdiction over navigable waters lies in the U.S. Constitution. Since the early nineteenth century, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section
gives the federal government extensive authority to regulate interstate commerce. This view originated in 1824 in the landmark case of gibbons v. ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 6 L. Ed. 23. In Gibbons, the Court was faced with deciding whether to give precedence to a state or federal law for the licensing of vessels. It ruled that navigation of vessels in and out of the ports of the nation is a form of interstate commerce and thus federal law must take precedence. This decision led to the contemporary exercise of broad federal power over navigable waters, and in countless other areas of interstate commerce.
El Jefe
December 28th, 2010
10:51 am
If we were talking about an inter-coastal waterway port I would agree with Jay. We are talking about a port that in global in nature. It is a international port of entry.
While I do believe it would benefit Georgia to sell bonds and do it themselves, I can see a sliver of authority under the Constitution. One of the powers of Congress is -
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Congress has taken a very broad meaning to the term “regulate” in the past, too broad.
If they mean to make regulation that permit more international traffic in the port by dredging – a maybe.
If they mean to make regulations that force the port authority to increase traffic by dredging – no.
As I said, it is just a sliver of authority. I do feel Congress will do whatever it wants regardless of the words contained in the founding documents.
This is one of the reasons, the people are not satisfied with the conduct on Capitol Hill. In two more years we will replace another batch of Senators, unless they start acting like representatives of the people.
Personally, I think the 17th Amendment should be repealed as a way of controlling the Senate.
Matti
December 28th, 2010
10:53 am
Adam,
Of course they will continue to be the “abusive lover” you reference. That’s because the people just keep taking them back again, over and over, based on lame promises (made half-heartedly, w/o even trying to be convincing anymore), while ignoring Dr. Phil’s primary tenet: The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Americans are just insecure b!tzches.
MPercy
December 28th, 2010
10:56 am
Jay @9:36
The Iraq war was started with strong Democratic support, too. H.J.Res. 114 authorizing the use of force in Iraq passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 296-133, and passed the Senate by a vote of 77-23. Eighty-two Democrats (40% of their members) supported the action in the House and 29 Democrats (50% of their members) in the Senate also supported the action. In fact, the Democrats+Jeffords(I-VT) as a bloc had a 51-49 majority in the Senate, yet they still passed the bill.
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
10:57 am
josef nix
December 28th, 2010
10:49 am
———————————————————-
The Constitution matters only to the extent that the
Federal Government chooses to honor it. No other
government has the power to enforce it, unlike when
it was written.
chuck
December 28th, 2010
10:58 am
BULLS…(EYE) your 9:19 and 9:24 are stupid obfuscations of reality. The state of Georgia does NOT get $1.01 for dollar sent to the feds. PEOPLE in the state of Georgia may get that amount, but the STATE doesn’t. That is an important distinction. There are military bases here in the state and the people who work on those bases get paid by the feds. How does that equate to the State of Georgia “loving those federal dollars”?
SoCo, Lil Barry is absolutely right about the Afghanistan war coverage since the election. ABC reading the names doesn’t change that. Coverage in the so-called mainstream media has shrunk to almost nothing since Barack HUSSEIN Obama became the President and took over responsibility for it. This IN SPITE of the fact that deaths have increased SIGNIFICANTLY in the past 2 years. Here is a hypocrite test for YOU. Are you willing to criticize the President for not bringing the troops home?
Jay
December 28th, 2010
11:01 am
El Jefe, as I mentioned to @@ earlier, James Madison anticipated your argument and rejected it, stating explicitly that “”The power to regulate commerce among the several States” can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce…”
Now, you may claim that you know better than the Father of the Constitution….
Jay
December 28th, 2010
11:05 am
And Moderate, I read the Gibbons decision before posting this. It says nothing about the right of the federal government to finance “internal improvements” and deals exclusively with whether the state of New York could grant a monopoly on steamship travel.
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
11:06 am
Jay
December 28th, 2010
11:01 am
————————————–
I believe the Feds circumvent that prohibition with ‘earmarks’.
Doggone/GA
December 28th, 2010
11:08 am
“yet they still passed the bill”
Yes…the jackasses
Granny Godzilla
December 28th, 2010
11:08 am
MPercy
An individual as wise as you probably also is aware that those folks were lied to….WMD and Colin Powell and the cartoon mobile labs and all that.
Mary Elizabeth
December 28th, 2010
11:08 am
Josef Nix @ 10:49
“Abraham Lincoln said, ‘there is a higher law than the Constitution.’”
I agree with Lincoln. But if we do not “tap into” that higher law – serves us well to have the Constitution available, as a secondary choice.
Would you, Josef, elaborate on the situation in which Lincoln said those profound words?
What wisdom Lincoln had.
El Jefe
December 28th, 2010
11:09 am
Jay,
We are not talking about among the several States, we are talking about “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations…”
And as I stated, it was at best a maybe.
josef nix
December 28th, 2010
11:11 am
Frog
Yep. I mentioned the two greatest usurpers of the Constitution in our history as a Constitutional Republic…we see whose pictures are on the currency, don’t we? And any time the messy little document gets in the way of the imperial ambitions, why, just disregard it…
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
11:12 am
Again, no one pays any attention to reality.
Whenever any former Confederate State activates
the National Guard, the Guard is immediately Federalized.
Moderate Line
December 28th, 2010
11:12 am
This is a bad example considering that constitution specifically address navigable waterways and international commerce for regulation by the federal government. There are probably many examples were Republicans are hypocrites. Keep in mind James Madison vetoed this bill which means that many people in both houses disagreed with him.
chuck
December 28th, 2010
11:15 am
retired early, Who was in charge of the State of Georgia in the early 1990’s?
WE ALL, regardless of party affiliation, need to keep a watch on OUR government. I am a frequent critic of Republicans when they spend too much. where is the dem criticism of this president and congress? It hardly exists.
josef nix
December 28th, 2010
11:16 am
Mary Elizabeth
When he was called on the carpet for suspension of habeas corpus, censorship or the mails, jailing of opponents without due process, censorship of the press etc.
All in all a rather facetious comment considering how he claimed he was launching a war to “defend” said document…
And, sorry, Diocletian of the Potomac is no hero of mine…wise? How so? However spiritual I may be in the arena of the order of the universe and the search for the Cosmic Ohm, the earthly is that we’re a constitutional republic and there is no higher law…
Granny Godzilla
December 28th, 2010
11:16 am
chuck
I hope your frustration with the lack of war coverage in our corporate media is as great as that of the liberals. On the left wing blogs this is very frequently a major topic. Rachel Maddow does war coverage nightly. We see main stream media nearly ignoring it.
Is that true of the right wing sites as well? Are they giving you the war coverage you need?
May I suggest you contact your favorite media outlets and let them know how strongly you feel?
josef nix
December 28th, 2010
11:17 am
Frog
And we’ll get another lesson therein as soon as these states begin to gerrymander to accomodate their new congressional seats…
Matti
December 28th, 2010
11:19 am
Are you willing to criticize the President for not bringing the troops home?
I am. I am also willing to restate the point I beat to death lately: The notion that there are two opposing sides in D.C. — one fighting for your freedom and integrity and the other fighting to destroy them — is a RUSE, just like the whole “Liberal media” fabrication. Most of the media is corporate media, concerned only with the dollars they make pretending to feud with each other and amping up ratings with the faux outrage they spin and fling to whip us into a gotta-tune-in-for-the-latest! panic. Coroporations are still making money off the blood of our soldiers, politicians are still using them for political brownie points, and no, I do not think for one minute that I’m “safer” now.
As Joe the Plutocrat explained earlier, we do not own the horses being traded, nor do we see any profits. We merely feed them and clean up the steaming piles.
AmVet
December 28th, 2010
11:21 am
M. Percy, to your point, 39% of the spineless Dems allowed themselves to be intimidated by the blood lusting faketriots and voted to allow you know who to botch you what in you know where. I’d say that was more like tepid support, rather than strong wouldn’t you?
And the valorous neo-cons?
Over 97% of those gutless b@st@rds did.
Sorry, just like the Dems owned Viet Nam, the fake conservatives own Iraq…
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
11:22 am
We now have a standing army and National Guard
that has expertise in ‘door to door’ rebellion control.
We have uniformed Federal enforcement officers in
all major cities and along all our borders with those
agencies having the power to ‘deputize’ the National
Guard. All US citizens who travel outside our borders
must have US Passports. The war on terror seems to
be directed at US.
paleo-neo-Carlinist aka Joe the Plutocrat
December 28th, 2010
11:23 am
Adam and Matti, bad metaphor (or perhaps, brilliant metaphor). ‘abusive lover’ is an oxymoron. this is because there are “abusers” and there are “lovers” but the recipient of the abuse (or the lover) ulitmately controls the relationship. perhaps “dysfunctional” or “codependent” relationship is more accurate. but then whom do we the People blame? PSYCH 100 told us abuse is about power and control. POLYSCI 100 told us politicians are about power and control. and with all due respect to Dr. Phil, HIST 100 teaches us that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. bummer, huh?
josef nix
December 28th, 2010
11:23 am
“Sorry, just like the Dems owned Viet Nam, the fake conservatives own Iraq…”
And the fake liberals own Afghanistan….
chuck
December 28th, 2010
11:26 am
BTW, you know if we were talking about spending the same amount on the homeless, or public housing, or free health care, Jay would be advocating FOR the expenditure. I do hope that all of you realize that JAY has NO PROBLEM with this kind of spending and doesn’t think that the Constitution has any relevance whatsoever when it comes to spending. Jay is one of those that trots the Constitution out only when it suits him..i.e. to make a POLITICAL POINT. In fact, I used these same quotes from Madison about 3-4 weeks ago when we had a discussion about some other spending bill…stimulus I think.
Paul
December 28th, 2010
11:28 am
“their protestations to the contrary are mere cynical theater.”
My initial thought was ‘grandstanding,’ but ‘cynical theater’ is more apropos.
But, ‘cynical theater’ implies those engaged are aware of the contradictions in their positions. Somehow, I’m not convinced that’s the case.
Ah, well, it does provide entertainment for seven more days –
Oh, and nice job by the Air Force over Georgia Tech yesterday. Dang, that must be embarrassing -
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
11:28 am
josef nix
December 28th, 2010
11:23 am
And the fake liberals own Afghanistan….
——————————————–
…and have pretended to liberalize the US Military..
chuck
December 28th, 2010
11:29 am
Mary Elizabeth, you feel free to be as “egalitarian and humanitarian” as you want to be. JUST do’t try to use MY MONEY to do it.
chuck
December 28th, 2010
11:29 am
oops, DON’T
Jay
December 28th, 2010
11:30 am
Moderate, the Constitution does NOT specifically address navigable waterways. Waterways, rivers, etc., are never even mentioned.
and “regulating” commerce — for alleged strict constructionists — cannot be redefined to mean financing port construction. Regulating means regulating.
Mary Elizabeth
December 28th, 2010
11:30 am
Lincoln’s thoughts from Michael Burlingame’s book, “Abraham Lincoln: A Life”:
“Lincoln’s overstated his own passivity in his letter to Albert Hodges in April 1864 which he concluded: ‘I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the nation’s condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected, God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God.’
The Constitution and his presidential oath of office were Lincoln’s guiding stars. ‘It was in the oath I took that was in the oath I took that I would, to be the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,’ Lincoln wrote to Hodges. ‘I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power. I understood, too, that in ordinary civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgement on the moral question of slavery. I had publicly declared this many times, and in many ways. An I aver that, to this day, I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery. I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government – that nation – of which that constitution was the organic law.’ ”
Link:http://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/Library/newsletter.asp?ID=145&CRLI=202
MPercy
December 28th, 2010
11:31 am
Granny, that dog won’t hunt. Have you ever read HJ 114? I have. Not one word about yellow cake. Very little of it hinges on anything that could possibly be considered a “Bush lie”. And the many members of Congress who sit on defense, intelligence committees were waylaid by these “lies”, too?
Mrs. Clinton was so stupid as to allow the idiot in charge (that’d have been Mr. Bush) to trick her into voting for his war of choice? But she was considered a front-runner for the Presidency?
Actually, Mrs. Clinton tried to backpedal from her war vote a few year back. It was funny then, and still is, as she paints herself as either utterly incompetent (cannot understand the title of the bill she is voting on, let alone the actual text…and this wasn’t one of those “Good Things for American Consumers” feel-good bill titles either) or utterly gullible, to the point she is led about by the nose by someone her party long derided as an idiot.
————————-
This morning on Meet the Press, Hillary Clinton defended her 2002 vote for the Iraq war resolution, saying that she “thought it was a vote to put inspectors back in” so Saddam Hussein could not go unchecked. She insisted that she and others were “told by the White House personally” that this was the purpose of the resolution, and cited President Bush’s assurances to defend her position.
Moderator Tim Russert pointed out that the title of the resolution was the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.” Clinton responded saying, “We can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. But when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution said, ‘It was not a vote for war,’ What I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, ‘If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job,’ I was told that’s exactly what we intended to do. “
chuck
December 28th, 2010
11:32 am
Granny, FOX covers the war pretty much every night in their 6:00 and 7:00 news shows. AND, they don’t do it in a way that is critical of the President. They just report what is happening.
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
11:33 am
chuck
December 28th, 2010
11:29 am
JUST do’t try to use MY MONEY to do it.
———————————–
chuck, you have no money, you only have iou’s
from a Federal Reserve Bank.
WillieRae
December 28th, 2010
11:33 am
Jay,
Is anything really unconstitutional in your mind? Does the constitution create limts we may not pass, no matter how expedient or popular? If so what are our constitutional limits? What are the parts of the constituion that we can disregard? Who decides and how?
If one political point of view decides that an action passes constitutional muster, may a competing perspective undo that decison? How about the obverse?
MPercy
December 28th, 2010
11:34 am
Amvet, I’d say it was a lot stronger than, say, Republican support for the health care bill, stimulus, or even the recent tax deal.
josef nix
December 28th, 2010
11:35 am
Mary Elizabeth
That was his defense…the fact is that he said there was a higher law and he felt free to ignore the Constitution any time it got in his way…and he did…he also had a bad habit of using the L-rd’s name in vain…
Michael H. Smith
December 28th, 2010
11:35 am
If it is all the same josef, I’ll stick with the representative republic that we have which allows us to change the constitution or at least what remains of both.
TnGelding
December 28th, 2010
11:39 am
The states gave up their rights when they got on the fed teat. And it doesn’t look like they’re willing to get off. The GOP is all talk and no action. Tea Partyers will abandon it posthaste. Boehner knows he can bluster all he wants and then blame lack of action on the Senate.
El Jefe
December 28th, 2010
11:39 am
The whiny liberals and progressives are crying about the republicans being hypocrites. Well guess what, that titles applies to both parties.
Commerce is what built this nation and commerce is what the left wants to destroy. Let us foreign oil instead of our own. Let’s restrict coal use and make everyone pay more for electricity. Let’s have the second highest corporate tax in the world so the consumer can pay more for any item locally made. Let’s let unions set wages instead of the market place. Let’s let people legally bribe a Congressman with “campaign funding” and other “gifts”.
Until Congress takes it upon themselves (and cows will fly) to correct the excessive spending and excessive taxing, we will continue to have these inane arguments about whom is worse.
Congress proven by example and past history they are incapable of handling the nations finances, yet “We The People” keep re-electing the same bozos.
When we become Iceland or Greece we might have a chance to wake up and have real reform.
Jay
December 28th, 2010
11:39 am
Chuck, I’m not arguing that it’s unconstitutional to fund the Savannah port project.
I’m merely pointing out that by it’s unconstitutional if judged by the theories that the GOP so sanctimoniously embraces.
Mary Elizabeth
December 28th, 2010
11:39 am
Josef @ 11:16
See my posting at 11:30. I think Lincoln is one of the few leaders of our nation, who had “tapped into” that “higher law” that you mentioned earlier. His Gettysburg Address and his Second Inaugural Address speak for his higher, more evolved consciousness,150 years later, even with all of his complexities.
El Jefe
December 28th, 2010
11:40 am
TnGelding,
Actually it was the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution that started taking powers away from the States.
TnGelding
December 28th, 2010
11:40 am
We’re sitting on $55 trillion in household wealth. All the politicians have to do is have the guts to pay for the government they’ve given us.
TaxPayer
December 28th, 2010
11:40 am
How do we know what the founding fathers really meant by the word “regulating?”
Bosch
December 28th, 2010
11:40 am
Sounds like a plan to me — lets get all according the Constitution. The problem lies when politicians forget they are the government and start delving into the business of the project. They just can’t keep their fingers out of the pot. Let the business people put up the risk and deal with the consequences if it goes bad and stop asking the politicians for bailouts. When business people realize that the government won’t be there when they over pay their executives to the point that their own bottom lines don’t mesh out and the money won’t be there to help them out, then maybe they’ll adjust their practices.
The federal government does have the power to tax and business people need to realize that needs to be part of their expenses.
MPercy
December 28th, 2010
11:41 am
Amvet “Sorry, just like the Dems owned Viet Nam, the fake conservatives own Iraq…”
I would tend to agree, but just wanted to point out that had Democrats stood by their supposed principles at the time (like the Republicans presented a unified front, or nearly so, vis-a-vis stimulus, HCR, etc.), they could easily have prevented the action. They didn’t then, they didn’t do anything when they took control of Congress under Bush, they didn’t do anything that wasn’t already scheduled even after Pres. Obama took over presiding over large majorities in both houses.
Maybe you believe like Granny that they were all just gullible people who were lied to and taken advantage of.
I predicted the day after he won the election that Bush would reignite a war in Iraq, but it took Congressional Democrats to make it actually happen.
Mary Elizabeth
December 28th, 2010
11:41 am
Josef @ 11:35
Lincoln and the Lord’s name in vain: Picky Picky
Paul
December 28th, 2010
11:41 am
If Republicans were really serious about their ‘legal’ interpretation of the Constitution, they would (rather than merely citing the passage in the Constitution that allows Congress to pass such a law) cute the US Supreme Court decisions that affirmed similar laws.
And they would also cite regulatory agency heads to appear before the relevant committee to cite the same for the regulations.
‘course, those agencies were set up,in part, so Congress would not have to deal with all the vast issues that lead to regulations.
Else, if Republicans were really, really serious, they’d introduce legislation to invalidate the entire body of administrative law.
Jay, maybe you can get a Democratic representative from Georgia to read the first part of your column on the House floor after Democrats introduce some piece of legislation?
josef nix
December 28th, 2010
11:42 am
Michael
I am a citizen of the United States of America, a representative republic, and acknowledge no higher law in that than the Constitution on which it was founded. It is not the state and its structure with which I have arguments, but the three-toed cretins we consistently elect as governments of that state under that Constitution…
TnGelding
December 28th, 2010
11:42 am
El Jefe
December 28th, 2010
11:40 am
How does that contradict my posting?
ATF
December 28th, 2010
11:43 am
If deepening the port is such a good idea for Georgia, then tax Georgians to do it.
I, too, am tired of the two-faced GOP. If we need to get it done because it is a good idea for Georgia, then do it. I am willing to be taxed for things that can make a difference to the state.
Of course, I don’t make much so my taxes won’t be much unless it is sales taxes. And, if the sales taxes get too high it will mean, literally, food out of my mouth. I can budget the income tax better than a sales tax. And, I do believe the benefits from the deepening of the port are more likely to flow much more highly to a few big wigs and well connected (think Purdue) than to the general public. so income taxes are more likely to provide that those who make the most (from the investment of our tax dollars) will pay more of it back in taxes. those who benefit most should pay more back than those who benefit less.
So, GOP, tax us. It is okay. Make it an income tax. Act on what you claim to believe.