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
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
1:14 pm
TnGelding
December 28th, 2010
1:09 pm
———————————-
Would that be the final shot in the war on poverty?
Raise the minimum wage to 30.00 per hr?
Let’s try it.
Normal
December 28th, 2010
1:15 pm
Barking Frog & Nice Guy,
If gas gets to 5.00 a gallon, I’m going to really love my motorcycle…I’ll even get a side car for grocery trips…
TnGelding
December 28th, 2010
1:16 pm
Obama had better nationalize the oil companies before gas reaches $5. Our adversary Hugo gives us heating oil. Our ally Saudi Arabia supports $80 a barrel oil.
Bruno
December 28th, 2010
1:16 pm
For Ringo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6y4uY1WvTA
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
1:17 pm
Normal, you may have to keep an armed guard
with your bike..
MPercy
December 28th, 2010
1:19 pm
The general welfare clause in Article I Section 8 is a *prelude* to the enumerated powers. As in “In order to provide for the defense and general welfare of the nation, the government may exercise the following powers:” which is then followed by the enumerated powers. If the government can be called upon to do anything that that constitutes “general welfare”, then an enumeration of limited powers would not have been necessary, nor would the 9th & 10th amendments.
The principle authors of the Constitution had several things to say about the “general welfare” clause making this eminently clear:
“For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?” Federalist No. 41, James Madison
“Our tenet ever was… that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.” –Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers.” James Madison’s view of the General Welfare Clause of Article 1. Section 8, from a letter written to Edmund Pendleton on January 21, 1792;
“The construction applied… to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to [the General Government's] power by the Constitution… Words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument.” –Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:385
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” –James Madison
“I hope our courts will never countenance the sweeping pretensions which have been set up under the words ‘general defence and public welfare.’ These words only express the motives which induced the Convention to give to the ordinary legislature certain specified powers which they enumerate, and which they thought might be trusted to the ordinary legislature, and not to give them the unspecified also; or why any specification? They could not be so awkward in language as to mean, as we say, ‘all and some.’ And should this construction prevail, all limits to the federal government are done away.” –Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1815. ME 14:350
“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.” James Madison
Granny Godzilla
December 28th, 2010
1:20 pm
Gas at 5 bucks?
Ah…Perhaps Hubberts’ Peak is at hand.
TnGelding
December 28th, 2010
1:20 pm
Man, I admire you Constitutional scholars.
Normal
December 28th, 2010
1:21 pm
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
1:17 pm
Normal, you may have to keep an armed guard
with your bike..
He can sit in the side car and hold the groceries. Maybe I’ll mount an M-60 on the side car too…
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
1:21 pm
Middle East oil may get less attention.. African oil
is booming.. We now have an African Command in
the Army. HQ was supposed to be in Atlanta but for
some reason they left it in Germany.
Adam
December 28th, 2010
1:25 pm
That was well said MPercy.
If, however, things like Social Security and welfare and medicare are all unconstitutional, why then has it not been litigated and found to be unconstitutional by our supreme court?
Jay
December 28th, 2010
1:25 pm
So just to be clear, MPercy, you believe that the state of Georgia ought to pay for the deepening of the Savannah River, not the feds? And you believe that those who want federal money for the project really aren’t the strict constructionists they claim to be?
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 28th, 2010
1:26 pm
Normal@1:21 pm
Don’t forget the Thumper
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
1:27 pm
Granny, hubbert assumed a finite supply of oil,
may not be true…Earth may be replenishing the
supply..
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 28th, 2010
1:29 pm
barking frog@1:27 pm
we decided last night it was Cheney LOL
Normal
December 28th, 2010
1:31 pm
Sense,
If you’re talking about the M-79 grenade launcher…nah. I’d prefer the M-19. Recoil’s a bit much, but it would clear any traffic jam you might come accross…
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
1:32 pm
Common, could be…he’s closer to the source with
every heartbeat…like us all.
Normal
December 28th, 2010
1:32 pm
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
1:27 pm
Interesting thought, how could that be?
Granny Godzilla
December 28th, 2010
1:37 pm
barking frog
yep I know of that possibility….but it takes a whole hell of a lot longer to make a gallon of oil (would eons be correct?) than it does for my little commutermobile to burn one up. and I’m quite sure
most folks burn a lot more than I do….
josef nix
December 28th, 2010
1:38 pm
Normal
Gotta figure out where to put that rack for the walker, though…
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
1:40 pm
Normal
December 28th, 2010
1:32 pm
———————————–
abiogenic process that occurs in the earth’s mantle is
one theory…
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
1:42 pm
Granny, Normal, also if the yellowstone volcano blows
we will all become part of the future supply…
josef nix
December 28th, 2010
1:45 pm
barking
IF it blows? WHEN it blows…you too much of the optimist…
Granny Godzilla
December 28th, 2010
1:47 pm
Barking frog and josef nix
Oh hell, lot’s of stuff in life regularly “blows”…..all you can hope for is that you have time to get out of the way.
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 28th, 2010
1:48 pm
is it going to blow May 21st?
Paul
December 28th, 2010
1:48 pm
josef nix
“PAUL Power corrupts. ”
Absolutely!
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
1:48 pm
josef 1:45 just considering my finite limitations
which seem fairly short due to my advanced age
much abused carcass…
MPercy
December 28th, 2010
1:54 pm
Jay @1:25 pm
Yes, that’s pretty much what I’m saying. I don’t see how dredging the port of Savannah serves a legitimate Federal purpose under the enumerated powers.
But before you say “AHA! You’ve proven my point!”, I have never claimed to support any of the people you’ve cited as likely hypocrites (in fact, Mr. Chambliss’ work on the agriculture committee during the last big Farm Bill made my blood boil), and am willing to stipulate to the notion that there are indeed Republicans who are hypocritical regarding their purported Constitutional strictness. I hope you are willing to do much the same for Democrats–like those who voted for the Iraq war.
It seems to me that your whole article today is a lame attempt at a “gotcha” rather than any real respect for the principles you highlight. I feel that I have a right to point out their hypocrisy, since I have held that line of thought; for you to be tooting this horn, well, it seems to be something more like Ms. Tucker would pull.
Adam
December 28th, 2010
1:56 pm
Oh hell, lot’s of stuff in life regularly “blows”…..all you can hope for is that you have time to get out of the way.
Supervolcano. When it blows, the whole planet experiences nuclear winter. And the initial ash cloud will likely cover most of North America.
Adam
December 28th, 2010
1:59 pm
MPercy: Voting for the Iraq War is something I can forgive, since everyone was lied to about the reasons. If, in fact, Iraq DID have WMDs, it would have been a good idea to go in and get rid of them. They didn’t, and the intelligence was falsified to get us in there to force a coup. That is NOT something most Democrats, and even some Republicans, would have voted for if they had known that was the reason. On the other hand they might have gotten a few Dem votes if it was just “Get Saddam!” minus the WMD talk.
Granny Godzilla
December 28th, 2010
1:59 pm
Adam
And I hope by then – I’m off planet!
They don’t call me granny cuz I’m a youngster….
MPercy
December 28th, 2010
2:05 pm
On the other hand, I can see how some more, er, pragmatic members of Congress might find it easier to say to themselves, “Well, my principles are telling me that this is not really Constitutional as far a I’m concerned. But the courts have allowed previous Congressional actions to proceed under the flimsiest of Constitutional pretext, like the commerce clause and general welfare clause. So this is the current rules of the game, and I will go along with the rules as they are currently understood.”
Just like the Blue Dog Democrats who set aside their professed principles so that they could go-along-to-get-along, paraphrasing John Kerry, those who were against the stimulus before they voted for it. Or the Stupak Democrats who signed up for HCR on a promise from Pres. Obama (Executive Order 13535) that can be rescinded at any time it becomes useful for the President to do so.
Normal
December 28th, 2010
2:06 pm
If I’m dead before yellowstone blows, I’ll be giving back as a reef…a condo for clown fish…
Granny Godzilla
December 28th, 2010
2:15 pm
Normal
I’m sure you’ll have all the luxurious amenities any discerning fish would be looking for….
MPercy
December 28th, 2010
2:20 pm
Adam 1:59 pm: If they were lied to, they were lied to by people they already had no reason to trust and/or claimed to believe were evil or stupid or both (Bush & Cheney, for Democrats at least). How gullible were they? Are these are people you think make effective Congressfolk?
And the WMD “lie” may have been more like an exaggeration of degree than a bald-faced lie. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/
“The WMD diehards will likely find some comfort in these newly-WikiLeaked documents. Skeptics will note that these relatively small WMD stockpiles were hardly the kind of grave danger that the Bush administration presented in the run-up to the war.”
And there are still those, like Pres. Obama’s new Director of National Intelligence who hold the notion that Iraq conspired with Syria and Russia to hide evidence of their (Iraq’s) efforts in the WMD arena.
“President Obama’s choice to be the next director of national intelligence supported the view that Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq sent weapons and documents to Syria in the weeks before the 2003 U.S. invasion.
On Iraq, Gen. Clapper said in an interview with The Washington Times in 2004 that “I think probably in the few months running up prior to the onset of combat that … there was probably an intensive effort to disperse into private homes, move documentation and materials out of the country. I think there are any number of things that they would have done.”
John A. Shaw, a senior Pentagon technology security official during the Bush administration, however, said he believed that some Iraqi weapons and materials were covertly shipped out of Iraqi factories with the help of the Russians. Satellite images released in 2004 by the Pentagon also showed Russian vehicles loading goods at Iraqi factories, but the nature of their cargo has not been determined.
Mr. Shaw has said Gen. Clapper was present at a meeting of East European intelligence officials who disclosed the Russian role in moving the Iraqi material out of the country.
David Kay, the first head of the ISG, said in 2004 that he believed there were small numbers of weapons sent to Syria before the war.
josef nix
December 28th, 2010
2:23 pm
At least when it blows, I’ll be warm! (Probably for some time afterward, too, if Scout and Co, are right!)
Granny Godzilla
December 28th, 2010
2:27 pm
Is that the same Jack Shaw that was forced to resign in 2004 after he was placed under investigation by the FBI on allegations that he tried to steer Iraqi reconstruction contracts toward friends ?
How’d that come out?
Normal
December 28th, 2010
2:28 pm
Josef,
I got to tell ya, if heaven is really streets of gold and sitting around strummin’ harps,
give me a Hades any day…at least all my my friends will be there.
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 28th, 2010
2:30 pm
josef nix@2:23 pm
But I can safely say I EARNED my place there, If the Catholics are to be believed
Dave R.
December 28th, 2010
2:32 pm
“Voting for the Iraq War is something I can forgive, since everyone was lied to about the reasons. If, in fact, Iraq DID have WMDs, it would have been a good idea to go in and get rid of them. They didn’t, and the intelligence was falsified to get us in there to force a coup.”
Really, Adam? How many PDB’s did you attend during the Bush administration? None?
Well, how about CIA briefings on Iraq WMD’s? Oh, none there, either?
OK, maybe you attended some Intelligence briefings at the Congressional level then, right? No?
Then I guess that your claim that Bush & Co. “lied” about Iraq is your usual ‘I don’t know what I’m talking about” response, since again, you don’t know what went on in any facet of government during the Bush administration.
Or it could just be more psychic powers you claim to have, but actually don’t.
josef nix
December 28th, 2010
2:35 pm
It may not be Hades, but the Bruin has come pretty close upstairs…
Granny Godzilla
December 28th, 2010
2:36 pm
Is this the same David Kay:
David Kay, the man who led the CIA’s postwar effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, has called on the Bush administration to “come clean with the American people” and admit it was wrong about the existence of the weapons.
In an interview with the Guardian, Mr Kay said the administration’s reluctance to make that admission was delaying essential reforms of US intelligence agencies, and further undermining its credibility at home and abroad.
Julian Borger in Washington The Guardian, Wednesday 3 March 2004
Harry Callahan
December 28th, 2010
2:37 pm
Obama has been looking for some “shovel-ready projects.” Looks like we’ve got one down in Savannah. Next question?
barking frog
December 28th, 2010
2:38 pm
While they dredge the port they need to build a
desalination plant and a pipeline to atlanta
to bring savannah river water and desalinated
water or just take it to macon and
put it on the high speed train.
Harry Callahan
December 28th, 2010
2:41 pm
I think the federal government has special authority/powers in ports, just as they do in airports. Maybe Jay could research that. Oh wait…that would actually require work, as opposed to mindless Republican-bashing…
jconservative
December 28th, 2010
2:47 pm
Michael H. Smith at 8:44 – I concur. My use of “Living Constitution” was intended as a jab at some Republicans who have declared war on the idea of a “living Constitution”. My argument is that since they will control the House once again they will ignore their previous dislike of a “living Constitution” and make full use of the idea of a “living
Constitution”. Hypocrisy as its American best.
As we all know the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. And the Roberts Court says that the Constitution is a “living constitution” and the Justices are at liberty to “legislate” to their hearts content.
Lil' Barry Bailout
December 28th, 2010
3:12 pm
Jay, while we’re “being clear”, are we to understand that you support nuke subsidies?
The Thin Guy
December 28th, 2010
3:20 pm
Great! When these federal pork barrel projects are canceled, we, The People, will get to keep more of our money. If the port in Savannah needs improvements, it should be paid for by the people who want it. Not taxpayers in Montana. The only thing The Federal Government should be funding is our national defense which is listed in The Constitution along with the Post Office. Toss in health care and education which are not found in The Supreme Law of the Land. BTW, does anyone know how to get the glue off my tongue these Kwanzaa stamps, which I’m putting on my Letters of Marquis and Reprisal, leaves? It tastes like, oh never mind.
Adam
December 28th, 2010
3:31 pm
MPercy: If they were lied to, they were lied to by people they already had no reason to trust and/or claimed to believe were evil or stupid or both (Bush & Cheney, for Democrats at least). How gullible were they? Are these are people you think make effective Congressfolk?
That’s just political rhetoric, they didn’t actually believe that the entire GOP was evil, nor do they all believe that now. There’s a fight going on for sure but political rhetoric is a far cry from ACTUAL belief that your opponent is the anti-Christ. When they were faced with intelligence reports that were seemingly authentic, that didn’t just come from the Bush admin, of course they believed it. Everyone believed it. There was widespread support for going into Iraq. However, the reasons people supported it were all based on a few lies.
Dave R: It is well documented that the WMD thing was a lie. And no, I’m not going to do your research for you. It is not my responsibility to debunk every single falsehood that you can think up. In this case in particular, more people know that it was a lie than do not, so I’m not particularly worried about having to prove it. http://www.lmgtfy.com/ Use the internet. It’s your friend.
God Bless America... and no one else
December 28th, 2010
3:34 pm
Ahhhh…. Jay…. Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to “collect duties, imposts and excises”, “regulate commerce with foreign nationals”, and “exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”, and Secton 10 specifically prohibits states from “lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.”
A Port of Entry, which Savannah clearly is, is clearly under the purview of Congress.
chuck
December 28th, 2010
3:44 pm
Dave R. He didn’t have to attend any meetings. He went to see W instead. You know OLIVER STONE knows everything that went on and he put it into that movie so that we could all see how we were duped.
Jay:
“And you believe that those who want federal money for the project really aren’t the strict constructionists they claim to be?”
No, I think those that support it are Opportunistic POLITICIANS, no better than the democrats that do the same thing, EXCEPT, we can at least count on them to give lip service to the issues we care about AND, they know that we will not reelect them if they don’t vote our way on those issues.
Matti, I still see your stance as being too conspiratorial for my taste. I don’t see things as being that neatly cut and dried as you do. Sure there is some of that, I just don’t think it is as wide-spread as you think it is. If it is, I would be a little worried if I was you. Men in black suits visiting you in the middle of the night for “outing” them.
chuck
December 28th, 2010
3:46 pm
Also Jay, I think you will find that they will not be doing as much of that because they are going to find out that one of our issues, FINALLY, is runaway spending that HAS TO BE STOPPED!!!
Lil' Barry Bailout
December 28th, 2010
3:55 pm
Obama and the Democrats got whupped in November because of their obscene spending and health care power grab. Americans oppose both.
Adam
December 28th, 2010
4:10 pm
chuck: Lip service to issues is not enough for me.
LBB: You must have missed the memo about the lie of the year.
Chris D.
December 28th, 2010
4:15 pm
Who cares Jay? Lets talk about Pelosi’s legacy and her 111th Congress adding more to the Federal Debt than the first 100 Congresses combined!
Congress 1-100 1791-1989 Total Debt $2,684,392,000,000.00
110th 2009 2010, $3,220,103,625,307.29! She should be tried for Treason
Adam
December 28th, 2010
4:18 pm
Chris: That would be more appropriate for the thread just prior to this one. Didn’t you “Fire Pelosi” in 2010? Oh that’s right, SHE STILL HAS HER JOB.
Chris D.
December 28th, 2010
4:29 pm
Sorry Adam, missed the previous thread…And yes Madam Speaker still has her job for 6 more days…
Moderate Line
December 28th, 2010
4:31 pm
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.
++++++
Jay argue with the website I cited. The opinion was the one of a legal website. From my perspective I going to take the opinion of a legal website over someone who has a personal vendetta to prove the Republicans to be hypocrites. You won’t hear me argue against the Republicans having their share of hypocrites but your argument in this case is very weak considering the over 150 years of precedent.
You just look like someone who stated something incorrect but your to stubborn to see the flaw in your argument.
Adam
December 28th, 2010
4:40 pm
She still has her job for a few more years, she just doesn’t get to keep her promotion. Ergo, she wasn’t fired.
Jay
December 28th, 2010
4:43 pm
Moderate, I went to the actual decision, the source document, to reach my conclusion, a conclusion that your own website confirms. It states that Gibbon “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 (over state law). This decision led to the contemporary exercise of broad federal power over navigable waters, and in countless other areas of interstate commerce.”
Regulation of interstate commerce — but Gibbon did not say a word about a federal role in the dredging of waterways. In fact, it goes on to note that the extension of federal power over rivers and harbors dates much later, to the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, which “forbids building any unauthorized obstruction to the nation’s navigable waters and gives enforcement powers to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.”
Madison, on the other hand, expressly ruled out clearing waterways as a legitimate federal activity much earlier, in 1817. That was original intent.
Adam
December 28th, 2010
4:49 pm
The true original intent of the document was that it be a living document, one that can change over time.
Lil' Barry Bailout
December 28th, 2010
4:52 pm
Wake up Adam. Obamacare is a huge federal power grab, and key parts of it are likely to be found unconstitutional.
Thanks for the NPR talking point though. Duly noted.
Lil' Barry Bailout
December 28th, 2010
4:54 pm
Nancy will be moving out of her nice big office, probably in the dead of night lest it show up on Youtube to vast acclaim by freedom-loving Americans.
dw
December 28th, 2010
4:56 pm
deputy dipstick jay, comparing apples to oranges, but calling them the same.
Adam
December 28th, 2010
4:56 pm
LBB: Not only did you not get the memo… after I gave it to you, you didn’t read it and misquoted the source. I guess that’s all I need to know about how seriously you take evidence.
Lil' Barry Bailout
December 28th, 2010
5:02 pm
Wrong, Adam, it was an NPR talking point week before last, and a talking point for every libbtard who, like you, worships at the feet of your Idiot Messiah. Get off your knees, you’re embarrassing yourself.
Lil' Barry Bailout
December 28th, 2010
5:08 pm
BTW, Pelosi was fired on November 17, when the incoming majority party gave her job to John Boehner.
Moderate Line
December 28th, 2010
5:08 pm
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.
++++
Where did I say the constitution specifically mentions navigable waterway. I don’t think strict constitutionalist have much of a problem with interpreting the commerce clause a pertaining to the ports. I can’t speak for strict constitutionalist concerning what they believe but I am not sure on I would rely on your opinion either.
Actually, McCulloch vs Maryland was the ruling which confirmed the Federal governments right to spend money on such things. I was only specifically pointing to the right of the federal government to be involved in ports. There is almost 200 years of precedent on this issue. I believe most of things the strict consitutionalist are against are those things the government started doing since 1932.
http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/mcculloch-v-maryland
Rockerbabe
December 28th, 2010
5:16 pm
It’s the old “I got mind and I don’t care about you” mentality. If the federal government finances all the major improvement projects in this country, then the federal government gets to have its say. The Savannah port could probably be financed under the conducting commerence clause, but then again, I am a dem and the constitution in its strictest interpretation is what applies to me. I prefer to think of the constitution as a living document, not a relic from the middle 18th century.
Moderate Line
December 28th, 2010
5:30 pm
Jay
December 28th, 2010
4:43 pm
Moderate, I went to the actual decision, the source document, to reach my conclusion, a conclusion that your own website confirms. It states that Gibbon “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 (over state law). This decision led to the contemporary exercise of broad federal power over navigable waters, and in countless other areas of intether areas of interstate commerce.”
Regulation of interstate commerce — but Gibbon did not say a word about a federal role in the dredging of waterways. In fact, it goes on to note that the extension of federal power over rivers and harbors dates much later, to the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, which “forbids building any unauthorized obstruction to the nation’s navigable waters and gives enforcement powers to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.”
Madison, on the other hand, expressly ruled out clearing waterways as a legitimate federal activity much earlier, in 1817. That was original intent.
++++++++
There is nothing in the constitution about funding a National Bank but yet one was established. The state of Maryland argued that the federal government had no right to establish a bank. However, McCulloch vs Maryland ruled in the favor of the federal government to establish a bank. This was accomplished in 1817 thus establishing the federal governments ability to fund things not specifically mention in the constitution.
The Rivers and Harbor Act was execution of that authority granted by the constitution to congress. The act did not grant the government the authority to regulate navigable waterways.
Moderate Line
December 28th, 2010
5:32 pm
To clarify
The act did not grant the government the authority to regulate navigable waterways that authority was already established otherwise the law would be unconstitutional
Adam
December 28th, 2010
5:33 pm
LBB: If NPR talked about it, then fine they talked about it. So did other major news organizations. The “government takeover of healthcare” was and IS a lie. Get it through your head. That’s your memo. The source for it being lie of the year is Politifact. You just don’t like the evidence so you resort to attacking NPR. Yippe for you, you found the wek point! (not)
Jay
December 28th, 2010
5:35 pm
That’s right, Moderate.
Madison initally opposed a national bank, making just the argument that you describe: The Constitution did list that among the government’s enumerated powers, so government could not do it.
But by 1815, he had changed his mind. Even to Madison, the Constitution was apparently a living document.
Moderate Line
December 28th, 2010
5:37 pm
Here is the reference to McCulloch vs Maryland
http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/mcculloch-v-maryland
Michael
December 28th, 2010
5:51 pm
You are exactly right Jay! Isakson, and a lot of Rs suddenly justify their spending as being Constitutional when it comes to handing out welfare checks to Wall Street, and digging holes in rivers as this port expansion is. If it is a viable need in the private sector, then someone should form a stock company and fund the expansion the offering. Create revenue by charging ships a fee based on gross tonnage. Look at how the first Erie Canal was funded!
Moderate Line
December 28th, 2010
5:54 pm
Jay
December 28th, 2010
5:35 pm
That’s right, Moderate.
Madison initally opposed a national bank, making just the argument that you describe: The Constitution did list that among the government’s enumerated powers, so government could not do it.
But by 1815, he had changed his mind. Even to Madison, the Constitution was apparently a living document.
+++++++++++++
I have found most people’s principles are “living principles” depending on their own self interest. Madison was opposed to the bank when it was expected that excise taxes would come with it’s charter. However, when the US because of the economic affects of the war of 1812.
JoeFann
December 28th, 2010
6:54 pm
Jay, you obviously missed the class on irony. The red Ga pols are legally playing on the field designed, and remodeled, by others–all the while, working tirelessly to change said field.
Bill Orvis White
December 28th, 2010
10:14 pm
Sorry (Liberal) @Jay, Hussein Obama did more economic damage in his first 15 months of office than Jimmah Carter, Bubba Clinton and Ulysses Grant combined. Folk like you think it’s crazy to say that it’s GW Bush who started the recession – wrong! GW Bush was never able to crawl out from under the rock that Bubba Clinton and Bawney Frank left him in 2001. GW tried very hard to tamp down the irresponsible lending that Bawney and his pals Wiccan Pelosi and Brain-Damaged Reid strengthened, but he was stopped dead in his tracks when that awful liberal Congress went into effect in 2007.
Now, WE THE PEOPLE fired them and WE will see an increase in jobs, church attendance and a decrease in abortion-on-demand and debauchery.
I’m praying that Mr. Boehner will spend a lot of time investigating the chicanery under Hussein Obama and his weak-kneed “administration.”
Amen,
Bill
Adam
December 28th, 2010
10:52 pm
Bill, you crack me up. That whole thing was revisionist history.
Bill Orvis White
December 29th, 2010
7:51 am
@Adam
No one is revising history. I know that even your Mr. Boortz over there agrees with me. We ended up in a bad economy over this past decade because of the Clinton/Frank/Rubin troika of irresponsible policies. If we kept on GW low taxes/hands-off-business track, we would have seen unprecedented job growth. But no, Hussein Obama was installed to put in more unnecessary regulation that has stifled any hope of a recovery. It will take someone like Mr. Reagan to correct the damage that this current “administration” has created.
Amen,
Bill
Adam
December 29th, 2010
10:01 am
Do I need to point you back to the charts we’ve already seen over the past months that prove that job creation slowed down under Bush, and that deficit increases shot up under Bush, whereas the two opposite things happened under Clinton?
Bill Orvis White
December 29th, 2010
1:12 pm
@Adam
It’s all called residual economic effects. It takes time for these effects to happen. The Clinton/Frank/Rubin plan took time to gestate and then hatch early on in GW’s administration. Likewise, GW’s free market models would have hatched by now, but Hussein Obama killed it with high taxe$, heavy, unnecessary and burdensome regulations.
I’m a small businessman and I’m now thinking about getting out because my taxe$ are shooting through the roof and Hussein Obama wants me to get health care for me and my workers. We don’t want it! We don’t need it! Just leave us alone and let us expand our business. The Socialist-Democrat party just doesn’t get it.
Amen,
Bill
Adam
December 29th, 2010
3:36 pm
That’s double talk designed only to claim successes of the GOP while ignoring its failures. It’s a complete lie to suggest that Obama raised taxes (he, in fact, kept them the same or lowered them).
If you’re a small business, and you think your taxes are about to shoot through the roof, and that’s going to kill your business, then by all means END IT NOW. And if you have more than 50 employees then I hope you explain to them, fully, that you are QUITTING because you believe that (non-existent) taxes are about to happen.
You’re delusional, Bill. But you don’t need me to tell you that. Life will either slap you down for quitting your business, or you’ll realize, quietly (since you clearly wont’ admit it) that you were wrong and you won’t quit your business because you know damn well taxes aren’t going up on you.