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
MPercy
December 28th, 2010
11:44 am
paleo-neo-Carlinist aka Joe the Plutocrat
Our Government is a classic enabler and the people are almost all codependent. An enabler is a person who by their actions make it easier for an addict to continue their self-destructive behavior by rescuing the addict. The codependent party exhibits behavior that controls, makes excuses for, pities, and takes other actions to perpetuate the obviously needy party’s condition, because of their desire to be needed and fear of doing anything that would change the relationship.
TnGelding
December 28th, 2010
11:44 am
Which argument would you make, Jay?
james
December 28th, 2010
11:45 am
After finally reading the daily gibberish of this blog it comes with the same elementary verbiage as prior gibberish from this blog: “does not allow the federal gov’t to spend money”
Jay- we, the taxpayers, count on the federal gov’t to be a prudent fiduciary of OUR money. How in the hell do you conclude that Ga taxpayers are not paying for the project? All gov’t programs are paid by taxpayers.Gov’t should invest (not spend) money and should do so wisely. The tax base continues to shrink while we begin our 10th year of lack of leadership. The answer from the far left is hair of the dog, print and SPEND (not invest) more money. You and far right blog heads continue to enable lack of accountability and put out blogs that woud fail Georgia State freshman economics.
chuck
December 28th, 2010
11:45 am
WillieRae, Jay will trot out the 8th Amendment occasionally to defend some murderer facing the death penalty (even though CLEARLY the Constitution did not mean to overturn use of the death penalty since it was in operation at the time and used by the federal government). In fact other than that I don’t know that Jay has ever argued that ANYTHING violated it.
For those who think otherwise, be aware that Jay does NOT THINK that this spending is unconstitutional. It is just a lame attempt to point out what he BELIEVES to be hypocrisy.
Matti, I can see your point. I’m just not ready to be quite that cynical.
El Jefe
December 28th, 2010
11:46 am
TnGelding,
The states gave up their rights when they got on the fed teat.
I disagreed with this statement, that came after when the feds held the money over the states heads and told them to play it their way.
Same outcome.
Bosch
December 28th, 2010
11:47 am
chuck,
Just a suggestion, but why not post only what YOU think instead of speaking for others. Crystal balls, while cool, really don’t work.
TnGelding
December 28th, 2010
11:47 am
Touche!
josef nix
December 28th, 2010
11:50 am
Mary Elizabeth
Lincoln plunged us into a war which killed more of our sons than have died in all other wars combined when it was unnecessary, leaving scars which have yet to heal. He was an evil and self-aggrandizing politician in my view. Could he make a speech? Oh, as a wordsmith, he has had few equals. A higher and more evolved consciousness…? Not really…killing, maiming, burning cities, towns, farms and factories and claiming G-d told him to sounds pretty Medieval and unevolved to me…
AmVet
December 28th, 2010
11:51 am
MPercy, true. And without the GOP’s lockstep, non-thinking, non-scrotumed apparatchiks and their mafia-like obeisance, we would never have gone there in the first place.
And over 5,000 American families would not have been torn apart and ruined needlessly.
jonix, good point.
But I don’t think they are nearly as capricous and craven as the chest pounders in the GOP’s 101st Chairborne. You remember them, right? Who could forget?
The mushroom cloud, smoking gun guppies and cowardly clowns who couldn’t stop waving their pom poms for The Hero of the Texas ANG, when he was getting hundreds of flag-draped coffins sent home every month.
And the moment he and that paragon of personal courage – Dick Cheney – left office, they miraculously started “reconsidering” the situation.
I suspect that secretly, they love that GWB II has kept on keeping on the neo-cons war. But they are so gutless they won’t even salute him for doing so…
Jay
December 28th, 2010
11:51 am
Chuck, when the Eighth Amendment was adopted banning cruel and unusual punishment, flogging was considered a legitimate disciplinary method.
Today, not so much.
In other words, the words “cruel and unusual” were designed to reflect the standards of a given time. “Unusual” can be interpreted only in opposition to what is usual.
All that said, I have never argued that the Eighth Amendment bans the death penalty.
chuck
December 28th, 2010
11:51 am
I know that Jay. I posted as much a couple of hours ago and at 11:45. I on the other hand DO THINK THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Just like all of the OTHER out of control spending that has been and probably WILL CONTINUE regardless the party in charge.
Jay
December 28th, 2010
11:52 am
Josef, Lincoln didn’t start that war. He finished it. THAT’s what you find unforgivable.
retired early
December 28th, 2010
11:52 am
Chuck
Zell Miller was Governor.
This “use tax” two which I refer is intended to be paid by the “user”, to compensate the state for it’s expense. Trucks pay an additional “use tax” based on their weight to compensate the state for the damage they do to our state highways. The Port is a classic example of why this tax is important. An analogy could be that if the state absorbs “all cost” instead of those individuals or Companies, then the Longshoremen would be state employee… not paid by the shipping companies who now, pay them.
Now, thanks to some short sighted politicians , we have to ask the taxpayers to fund what should be funded by these shipping companies….and there would be not need to get Uncle Sam involved.
josef nix
December 28th, 2010
11:54 am
AmVet
And those flag draped coffins are still coming home and the media is still not making a to-do…chest pounding or the soft-shoe shuffle, the net result is the same…
chuck
December 28th, 2010
11:54 am
Jay, are you saying that you are in FAVOR of the death penalty?
TnGelding
December 28th, 2010
11:54 am
I think we can all agree that government at all levels has gotten too big and costly. I prefer the fee for service approach locally, including education, and bringing the education system into the 21st century. We’re spending as much on public education as we are national defense. We’re probably hindering our children with so much structure when so many of them are high tech savvy and free spirits. As for the federal budget, start with ending the three wars (Iraq, Afghan, drug) and go from there.
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 28th, 2010
11:56 am
Josef – 3 toed cretins? damn boy tell us (I mean tell us) how you really feel LMAO
TnGelding
December 28th, 2010
11:57 am
Jay
December 28th, 2010
11:52 am
And at what cost? Do you agree or disagree that it was unnecessary and he could have avoided it?
Mary Elizabeth
December 28th, 2010
11:57 am
Chuck @ 11:29
I, personally, don’t want your money. You really should keep as much of it as you can since it means so much to you.
Those who run our government will decide how the “common good” will best be served by our taxes. Our evolved consciousness as individuals will guide us in electing those officials who will best serve our interests, collectively, and best serve our common wills. Bear in mind that those interests and wills will evolve over time – hence, the communication of ideas.
Dave R.
December 28th, 2010
11:59 am
josef @ 11:15 ” the earthly is that we’re a constitutional republic and there is no higher law…”
Testify!
chuck
December 28th, 2010
11:59 am
retired early, I agree with you entirely. I don’t have as much of an issue with user FEES, because then the individual or company then has a CHOICE. However, from a STATE perspective, I can see the reluctance to impose such a tax since it could impact thousands of jobs in the state. In other words, what happens if Chiquita chooses to use a Texas port rather than a Georgia port? I personally don’t know, but you may. I would think that it would have significant impact on jobs in Georgia.
Michael H. Smith
December 28th, 2010
12:00 pm
I certainly wish our three-toed cretins would acknowledge no higher law than the Constitution exists in the United States of America. Unfortunately, it isn’t so, as they all seem ready to depart from it rather than confront the people who can change it to suit their agenda, if we agree with it. Then again, our cowardly three-toed cretins fear that we will totally reject such things e.g. as international law taking precedent over our Constitution or even being consider to have any legal weight at all in this country.
We are not subjects of the world or any foreign power, we are not the subjects of a King or political party. It is time to constantly remind our three-toed cretins that we are not their subjects either. We are their lords and masters.
chuck
December 28th, 2010
12:02 pm
Those interests and wills may change over time Mary, but the Constitution was written to PREVENT the use of government to promote or to FUND YOUR interests and wills or MY interests and wills. YOU should fund your OWN interests and wills, and I will do the same.
Jay
December 28th, 2010
12:04 pm
No Chuck, that’s not what I’m saying.
Personally, I can conceive of rare cases in which I, as a juror, would vote for the death penalty. And I don’t think the Eighth Amendment bans the practice. It’s not unconstitutional.
However, I don’t think the death penalty makes sense on policy grounds. For example, the expense and delay needed to ensure that it is carried out fairly make it impractical. The fact that a person can get the death penalty in one jurisdiction but 20 years in prison in another jurisdiction for the same crime makes it unfair. And it has no deterrent value whatsoever. I oppose it on those and similar grounds.
El Jefe
December 28th, 2010
12:04 pm
Mary Elizabeth,
Common good – garbage.
No where in the founding documents is such a lame idea as the common good.
If it benefits the Country, then it is a good idea. Commerce creates jobs, Jobs mean people can afford more than the necessities. Spending means more commerce.
The elected officials are not in the business (or shouldn’t be) of compassion or charity. It just isn’t in the Constitution.
AmVet
December 28th, 2010
12:05 pm
Yes, my friend, the corporate-owned coverup artists in the lamestream media and Charlie whatshisass told Cindy Sheehan to go home (enough already) after GWB II had his coronation…
So yes, in this regard, the BHO sycophants are eerily similar to the Bush suckups, aren’t they?
It’s enough to make me think that had conscription been implemented, it would have been BIG fun to see who moved the most members to Canada. The faux peaceniks or the Young Republicans at UGA…
OK, off to pay for those botched but highly profitable occupations…
Mary Elizabeth
December 28th, 2010
12:05 pm
Jay @ 11:52
Well said!
And Josef, the blood that was shed in the Civil War was the redemption America had to have experienced for her crimes against humanity with slavery in her soul. Not that Lincoln wanted that bloodshed, but he saw himself as an agent to fulfill that redemptive destiny of America.
Would it have been better to have had slavery in all of the western states, also, as a way of life? What a shame on America’s soul had that occurred. Lincoln kept us One as United States and we are still fighting that battle today with the state’s rights issues that are the true undercurrent in the present Constitution debate created by the conservative GOP, who are largely the former state’s rights advocates – when they were Democrats.
Jay
December 28th, 2010
12:06 pm
No Gelding, I don’t think he could have avoided it by any means other than accepting the permanent division of the country.
Kamchak
December 28th, 2010
12:07 pm
And it has no deterrent value whatsoever.
It will deter that individual from ever taking a life again, in prison or out.
Michael H. Smith
December 28th, 2010
12:08 pm
What is unforgivable about “that war”, Jay, is that it might have been avoidable.
El Jefe
December 28th, 2010
12:09 pm
And it has no deterrent value whatsoever.
That is correct, it isn’t a deterrent, it is the penalty for the crime.
Bosch
December 28th, 2010
12:09 pm
El Jefe,
“No where in the founding documents is such a lame idea as the common good. ”
You are conveniently forgetting the definition of our government which involves it to represent all the people.
josef nix
December 28th, 2010
12:10 pm
Jay
Okay, Beauregard fired the first shot. Lincoln called for an Army to invade. Neither side wanted peace and the only reason the hostilities came to a halt was when one side finally slaughtered enough of the other side. Bottom line, neither side wanted peace and was out to see to it that those who did were effectively silenced…and where, for the love of G-d, do you get the idea that I find the end of that carnage “unforgiveable?” I just don’t go lionizing one of the chief perpetrators in bringing it on to begin with…
Intown
December 28th, 2010
12:10 pm
I would cite the Interstate Commerce Clause. Republicans hate it, except when they don’t.
retired early
December 28th, 2010
12:10 pm
Chuck
Those ports in the other states enforce collection of this “use tax”. That is why Chiquita kept moving from state to state until it landed in Ga.
If Ga sticks by her own laws, this harbor deepening is paid for by these shipping companies. The companies then, cannot pick the “path of least resistance”.
Bill Orvis White
December 28th, 2010
12:10 pm
Mr. Madison did not envision Medicare, Medicaid, Social Insecurity, public screw-els, social debauchery, Godlessness, a weakened military, a president who has contempt for freedom, disrespect for the Oval Office and the rule of law, the pill, giving the store away to jihadists in Iraq and abortion-on-demand. This list balances out your failed attempt at interpreting the Constitution for your readers, Liberal Jay – nice try. The fact is that the Honorable Senator Chambliss and his colleagues believe in getting this nation’s priorities right with an important project like the Savannah Port. This port creates jobs and will get us out of Hussein Obama’s self-inflicted recession. Just like the nuclear plant expansion, the Savannah Port will contribute to Speaker Boehner’s economic revival program. If the economy ever gets better under Hussein Obama, don’t create this installed joke of a “leader.” Thank Rep. Boehner, your Senator Chambliss, Rep. Cantor and Senator McConnell.
Amen,
Bill
Paul
December 28th, 2010
12:12 pm
Kamchak
Unfortunately, it also makes sure those who never did anything wrong can lose their lives.
Dallas County District Attorney has had dozens of convictions – murder, rape, etc, – overturned from DNA evidence. Those convicted were innocent.
Is that a possibility you want your kids or grandkids to face?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-2653195694_x.htm
Bosch
December 28th, 2010
12:13 pm
“Mr. Madison did not envision”
“social debauchery, Godlessness, a weakened military, a president who has contempt for freedom, disrespect for the Oval Office and the rule of law”
Oh, i feel certain he could — you think this is new?
Jay
December 28th, 2010
12:17 pm
“Obama’s self-inflicted recession … ”
?????????
chuck
December 28th, 2010
12:17 pm
If it isn’t unconstitutional, then the application should be up to the individual states. The issues that you speak of came about through federal meddling in the practice. Why do you think it takes so long? It’s because the federal courts have been filled with ACLU legal retards who make the state jump through too many hoops to carry out JUSTICE. It is the whole reason FOR STATE’S RIGHTS.
That said, IF our congressional delegation pushes for the spending on the port, then I will certainly agree with you on this issue. Is there any indication that Johnny, Saxby and the 13 reps are pushing for this spending? OR, is it just STATE POLITICIANS?
Michael H. Smith
December 28th, 2010
12:18 pm
Jay
December 28th, 2010
12:06 pm
The country was already divided Jay, as it was from the beginning. What he couldn’t do as he show it, was to put it together as one without using war as the means to achieve that goal. Funny how the very ones in this country that now denounce the religious right so fervently, agree completely the abolitionists that were the religious right of that day who condemned slavery as immoral.
Mary Elizabeth
December 28th, 2010
12:18 pm
El Jefe @ 12:04
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Notice the words “promote the general Welfare.”
Kamchak
December 28th, 2010
12:18 pm
Unfortunately, it also makes sure those who never did anything wrong can lose their lives.
Yeah Paul, that ’s my biggest problem with capital punishment. I was addressing Jay’s comment that it had “no deterrent value whatsoever.”
For those that are actually guilty and convicted of murder, I got no problem with execution by the state. It will keep other prisoners safe from those that have nothing to lose.
Granny Godzilla
December 28th, 2010
12:18 pm
MPercy
Interesting twist, but they were lied to, we were lied to…..
Perhaps you missed Colin Powells performance at the UN.
And Hillary….Her vote on the war was the main reason I could not vote for her.
You can hold to your beliefs that the Iraq war was executed all fair and square, but you might as well believe in the tooth fairy while you are at it.
Keep up the good fight!
December 28th, 2010
12:19 pm
Yep….the death penalty precludes the dead from killing again…unless you convicted the wrong person. And there has been case after case of people wrongfully convicted….now its bad enough that they were locked up when innocent of the crime convicted, unless we have some new technology, you cant give them back life.
It also a lot cheaper to use the alternative” Life without parole.
El Jefe
December 28th, 2010
12:19 pm
Bosch,
You seem to forget that the powers of congress are few and defined. It is to promote health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being, or life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It is not to feed the poor or house the homeless. Those were left to the states, but our magnanimous federal government said they knew better and took that away from the states with Johnson’s Great Society.
josef nix
December 28th, 2010
12:19 pm
Mary Elizabeth…
With all due respect, but that war cannot be sanctified by claiming that the one good that came from it makes it holy when that was never the goal or the aim from the get-go…it was political grandstanding got out of hand by BOTH sides…BOTH…what is so hard about that? And who paid the price? Johnny Reb and Billy Yank…nameless, faceless and forgotten while we laud the very ones who forced them to pay that price…no, Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis are the worst two things to have ever befallen us as a nation.
And there’s still Jackson…I mean after all he did get rid of all those impediments to the nation as “one” with the Removals, now didn’t he? Where would we be if their sovereignty had been respected?
chuck
December 28th, 2010
12:20 pm
BOSCH, who is reading minds NOW? How do YOU KNOW HE FORGOT, especially when you can’t FORGET something that doesn’t exist.
Bookman on the Constitution, Madison and Georgia Republicans — Peach Pundit
December 28th, 2010
12:21 pm
[...] only go so far until the desire for funding for the next pork project is needed. And that is the point of Jay Bookman’s column today over at the AJC: That proper division of powers between state and federal authorities will be a [...]
Jay
December 28th, 2010
12:21 pm
Chuck, Chambliss, Isakson, Kingston and Barrow are all pushing very hard for federal money for this project. They’ve already gotten $44 million from DC just to fund studies of the idea.
El Jefe
December 28th, 2010
12:21 pm
Mary Elizabeth,
Read in Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution as to what is defined by General welfare. Ignorance is no excuse.
Here Spot
December 28th, 2010
12:23 pm
Jay is still upset the GOP took back so many seats. The constitution also doesnt make a provision for ObamaCare or the likes thereof yet Mr Bookman raises no protests.
Jay
December 28th, 2010
12:24 pm
El Jefe, you claimed that “No where in the founding documents is such a lame idea as the common good.”
Mary Elizabeth has provided clear evidence to the contrary. As someone once said, ignorance is no excuse.
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
12:24 pm
If Lincoln preserved anything, it was not the
US Constitution. If he finished anything it
was the pretense by the central government
that the Constitution was the law of the land.
Following and during the War the ‘might is right’
philosophy became the law of the land and has
continued to this day as invoked by GW Bush
when he invaded Iraq. I don’t disagree from a
practical standpoint, but I hate the hypocrisy
of the idealists who will not admit it. Unless
we admit it we cannot defend against it.
Paul
December 28th, 2010
12:25 pm
Kamchak
Thanks for the clarification. While I support the death penalty in theory, and while there are some cases so clear-cut and heinous it’s reasonable, such as those two guys in, where, Massachusetts?, who broke into the house, raped and killed the mom, raped the two girls and tied them to their beds and set the house on fire – there are plenty of others relying on eyewitness accounts and other such weak evidence that give me pause.
Jackie
December 28th, 2010
12:27 pm
We are witnessing the typical so-called conservative playbook on all problems that require more than two or three words; CONFLATE, EXTRAPOLATE, OBFUSCATE.
Now that the Repubs have control of the House, what are they going to do with it? To all citizens of this country, HANG ON TO YOUR SEATS, the turbulence is going to be horrific.
Dave R.
December 28th, 2010
12:27 pm
“Notice the words “promote the general Welfare.”
Notice the wording is not “PROVIDE”, Mary Elizabeth.
Paulo977
December 28th, 2010
12:29 pm
@@…@7:53am …Ha Ha …guess the devil can find some way of quoting scripture!!
Dave R.
December 28th, 2010
12:30 pm
“Mary Elizabeth has provided clear evidence to the contrary.”
Actually, Jay, she hasn’t.
Michael H. Smith
December 28th, 2010
12:30 pm
The ‘might is right’ philosophy isn’t always correct, though, I’m glad it isn’t always wrong when it is at times, incorrect.
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 28th, 2010
12:30 pm
El Jefe@12:19 pm
It is not to feed the poor or house the homeless. Those were left to the states, but our magnanimous federal government said they knew better and took that away from the states with Johnson’s Great Society.
—————————–
If I remember correctly the Federal Government took over these programs because the states were literally starving the people with lack of funding.
Kind of like now, except its the Federal Gov’t that has cut off funding for social programs.
josef nix
December 28th, 2010
12:32 pm
Frog…
As Ang Lee says “I grew up in Taiwan, where older people always complained that kids are becoming Americanized: they don’t follow tradition, and so we are losing our culture. As I got the chance to go around a large part of the world with my films, I would hear the same complaints. It seems so much of the world is becoming Americanized. When I read Daniel Woodrell’s book Woe to Live On, which we based Ride with the Devil on, I realized that the American Civil War was, in a way, where it all started. It was where the Yankees won not only territory but, in a sense, a victory for a whole way of life and of thinking.”
Jay
December 28th, 2010
12:33 pm
actually, Dave, she did.
And once again, I’m confident that most who read this blog will reach that same conclusion.
El Jefe
December 28th, 2010
12:33 pm
Common Sense isn’t very Common,
Actually, it was because different states provided different amounts of aid to the poor. Richer states had higher benefits and the poor flocked to them driving the cost to the state higher and higher. The old Catch 22.
Lil' Barry Bailout
December 28th, 2010
12:34 pm
James Madison, when asked if the “general welfare” clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee:
“If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.”
————————-
(means “no”).
james
December 28th, 2010
12:35 pm
More than 25% of Kids and Teens in the U.S. Take Prescriptions on a Regular Basis. Viagra is reimbursed? We don’t need the gov’t (the great enabler) to take over healthcare. We need those evil insurance companies to stop reimbursing every limp *&&), every tennis elbow, every depressed person because they screwed up on how they raised their kids, and the list goes on- do you really think you need full mouth x rays every year?
El Jefe
December 28th, 2010
12:35 pm
Jay,
What is the difference in the common good and the General Welfare.
One is a platitude and the other is defined in our Constitution.
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
12:35 pm
Is the death penalty cruel. Is the death penalty unusual.
If the constitution is not to be parsed it would have to be
‘cruel and unusual’ to be illegal. If you accept that the
constitution is irrelevant then the death penalty can
be the vengenance that it actually is and should be
carried out by the victim’s relatives.
chuck
December 28th, 2010
12:35 pm
Thanks Jay. I will call their offices this afternoon.
Lil' Barry Bailout
December 28th, 2010
12:36 pm
Bottom line, Madison stated that the general welfare clause does not give the government power to do anything.
Sorry Jay.
Jackie
December 28th, 2010
12:36 pm
The first step toward the turmoil the Repubs hope to put on their agenda is allow states to declare bankruptcy, cripple public service unions, renegotiate currently defined pensions and lower Social Security benefits.
This is the result of those who voted for policies that will devastate those of us that are not wealthy.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,18167,28043&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=GOP+proposal+to+allow+states+to+declare+bankruptcy&cp=50&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=GOP+proposal+to+allow+states+to+declare+bankruptcy&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=83f87efc6f926f13
Matti
December 28th, 2010
12:38 pm
chuck,
“Matti, I can see your point. I’m just not ready to be quite that cynical.”
I don’t want to speak for you, but I suspect what that means is that you’re having too much fun participating in the “divide and conquer” game. Those who control the money (and allow the stage production called “congress and elections” to continue as a distraction) want us at each other’s throats, vigorously debating “issues” they care nothing about. I’m sure they appreciate you playing along. Forgive me for calling BS on the whole thing, but that’s what it is.
The people who stand to make money off the dredging of our port will ensure that it happens, and they will ensure that somehow, WE (not those who profit) pay for it. Trust that we will not get a thank-you note.
Dave R.
December 28th, 2010
12:39 pm
Jay, are you sure you passed English 101?
How on Earth can you make a completely nonsensical statement equating “common good” with “general welfare” and expect anyone wth a working mind to buy that?
Wait – scratch that. You’re a liberal opinion columnist. Inconsistency and illogic is mother’s milk to you.
Lil' Barry Bailout
December 28th, 2010
12:39 pm
More from James Madison:
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
Paul
December 28th, 2010
12:42 pm
Jackie
Pls check out tinyurl.com
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
12:42 pm
General Welfare is the Commander in the War on Poverty.
Paulo977
December 28th, 2010
12:42 pm
Mary
Elizabeth @9:01am …so glad you offered your understanding of what drove the constitution at its very inception.Reference to the Bible and Christ’s teachings were most appropriate!
El Jefe
December 28th, 2010
12:42 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout,
From your post, we can see where the current government thinking will lead us.
“…it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
12:43 pm
General Welfare is the Commander in the War on Drugs.
Kamchak
December 28th, 2010
12:45 pm
Paul
What gives me pause is confining predators among prisoners with non violent offenses. The state has a responsibility for the protection of those that are trying to pay their debt to society.
Lil' Barry Bailout
December 28th, 2010
12:47 pm
El Jefe, that is precisely the intent of the liberal Democrat party, to subvert America as it was originally established, and to transform it into a European-style socialist state. I guess these idiots haven’t noticed that Europe is busy unwinding the mess their failed approach has created for them.
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
12:48 pm
General Malaise has allowed General Welfare to get
a death grip on our personal wealth.
Jackie
December 28th, 2010
12:48 pm
The interpretation of the ‘common good’ and ‘general welfare’ clauses are made clear by the posts
General welfare:
http://www.reasontofreedom.com/general_welfare_clause.html
Common Good:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071113235230AAwfChg
Jackie
December 28th, 2010
12:50 pm
@Paul
Wonder why tinyurt.com offers to the discussion?
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
12:55 pm
If a 55 mph speed limit was such a good idea and saved lives,
why did the government raise it? Are they trying to kill us?
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
1:00 pm
The government cannot make everyone rich but
it can make everyone poor.
Normal
December 28th, 2010
1:00 pm
If a 55 mph speed limit was such a good idea and saved lives,
why did the government raise it? Are they trying to kill us?
Nope, the big oil boys told them to raise it so that we would use more gas and they could raise
the price…simple bought and paid for economics…
Normal
December 28th, 2010
1:01 pm
The government cannot make everyone rich but
it can make everyone poor.
Good! Misery loves company…
josef nix
December 28th, 2010
1:03 pm
PAUL
See you’re here…thanks for your efforts to see to it we had a blog to play on while the Bruin was in hibernation…
Nice Guy
December 28th, 2010
1:03 pm
“they could raise
the price…simple bought and paid for economics…”
Riiiiggghht.
TnGelding
December 28th, 2010
1:03 pm
Jay
December 28th, 2010
12:06 pm
Well, I’ll go to my grave thinking he should have withdrawn federal troops until cooler heads could prevail.
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
12:55 pm
No, just accepting casualties for efficiency and speed. Its purpose was to save fuel.
Jay
December 28th, 2010
1:03 pm
I appreciate you posting those remarks from Madison, Barry, because they are pertinent here.
It’s also important to consider their context. They were uttered on the House floor in 1792, during debate over just how far Congress could go in promoting the general welfare. In other words, it was a matter of substantial debate and political controversy from the very beginning in this country. It was far from settled law.
The particular bill being debated by Madison and others involved bailing out cod fishermen. Madison, a Virginian, didn’t think much of the idea of bailing out New England’s cod industry. At one point in the debate, Madison even asks, in effect, what are we going to do next, pay subsidies to agriculture?
Which of course we do, just as we also subsidize nuclear power plants and finance interstate highways and port deepenings. (Odd, isn’t it, that those so angered by the auto bailout weren’t equally angered by lucrative nuke subsidies?)
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
1:05 pm
Normal, a former Shell exec predicts 5.00 per gallon gas
in 2012.
Paul
December 28th, 2010
1:07 pm
Jackie
tinyurl is a site where you enter in a link about 5,000 characters long and it reduces it to about 8 characters.
PS – I hold the record for the longest link, BTW -
Hi there, josef nix!
Yeah, that was my Christmas present to ya’ll.
But, I still have the power!
Nice Guy
December 28th, 2010
1:09 pm
“Normal, a former Shell exec predicts 5.00 per gallon gas
in 2012.”
If it gets to $5 a gallon, then we will begin to see the stock market/economy regress.
Can’t George W. Bush layoff tampering with oil prices for once?
TnGelding
December 28th, 2010
1:09 pm
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
1:00 pm
Actually, if it did a better job of redistributing the wealth, $30 trillion could be doled out to 100 million households. I’m too lazy to figure out how wealthy we would all be. $300,000?
josef nix
December 28th, 2010
1:10 pm
PAUL
Power corrupts.
Adam
December 28th, 2010
1:11 pm
JohnnyReb: Adam, just because Republicans made a deal when they should not, does not mean Obama is not weak
But why did they make the deal anyway? After 2 years of holding their ground suddenly 6-11 of them vote with most Democrats? That’s leadership!
TnGelding
December 28th, 2010
1:12 pm
$5 a gallon gas? Only if we allow it. We simply have to change the way it gets to market.
Nice Guy
December 28th, 2010
1:13 pm
“Odd, isn’t it, that those so angered by the auto bailout weren’t equally angered by lucrative nuke subsidies?”
Meh. Not really. Two different issues.