members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/constitution.html -> members.tripod.com/%7EGOPcapitalist/constitution.html
The document itself: Though few realize it, the Constitution is a very defined and extremely straight forward text with many definitions inherent in the common logic behind it. Thenecessary and proper clause of Article I, Section 8, enumerated power of Congress 18 - which mandates that the aforementioned 17 enumerated powers are further defined and expanded upon through implications though limited on the whole by a necessary and proper relationship. Maryland defined this as to Congress may enact legislation within the powers 1 specifically enumerated by Article I, Section 8 and 2 that which reasonably necessary and proper in carrying into execution these powers and those elsewhere listed to Congress in the constitution ie.
The Supreme Court implied this under John Marshall in United States v. Alabama half a century later also later reffered upon by United States v. Due to these rulings, precedence mandates that we interpret Common Law terminology in the Constitution in light of its Common Law definition. Examples of such Common Law terminology Habeas Corpus - the rule requiring a reasoning for the detainment of a person High Crimes and Misdemeanors - the standard of impeachment which was so recently misconstrued and taken out of context in the Clinton Impeachment trial. This term, roughly meaning a serious offense or a felony, was established in 1388 before being thoroughly and specifically defined shortly afterward and yes, it does very clearly include perjury within its definition. Bill of Attainder - Congress cannot legislatively bestow a punishment upon a person including a fine such as in Censure. Emminent Domain - compensation for lands acquired by the government 2. The Framers Themselves: What the framers themselves thought about the Constitution, their thinkings in general about government, their intentions on the terminology and wordings of the Constitution as expressed at the Constitutional Convention, and their writings related to the document. These notes provided detailed evidence behind the intentions of the framers with each clause included within the document. Ratification Writings - Writings about the Constitution - both for and against it - during the debate for ratification. Franklin, for example, was known to have had meetings with prominent social thinkers of the day such as Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations and possibly Voltaire. John Lockes ideas on government and social contracts Second Treatise on Government were well known and to the framers and provided a base for many of their theories. Other revolution era writings such as Paines Common Sense display the thinkings of the period.
The Constitution implemented, 1787-1834: This period from the writing of the Constitution to the end of the Marshall court shows the institution of the new government by the men who founded it and reflecting on their intentions of its implementation. Ogden Founding Fathers who served as President George Washington John Adams Thomas Jefferson James Madison Congress, the Supreme Court, speeches, conflicts, and issues of the period Is Welfare Unconstitutional? Overview: Until the New Deal era, a general acknowledgement that individual social welfare, more specifically the use of public monies for the purpose of charity by the national government, was unconstitutional on the national level prevailed in government. Charity was known not to be an enumerated power nor one reasonably implied by the necessary and proper clause and therefore considered unconstitutional. Yet around the time of the New Deal, government began overlooking this clear unconstitutionality. The Supreme Court temporarily checked this until the Court Packing Scandal led to pro-welfare rulings by an incapacitated court, fearing dismantling by FDR and therefore under duress, in 1937. Since then the use of public monies for charity, or social welfare, has expanded in what is reasonably termed direct defiance of the Constitution. This page will, using the three interpretive tools described above, demonstrate how todays social welfare state remains in direct defiance of the United States Constitution. The Framers Speak: Long has it been acknowledged that Congresss powers were limited as described above by Article I, Section 8. Here the framers acknowledge this Section as a limiting factor, proving that todays misinterpretations, which allow full justification for practically anything Congress desires to do under the guise of this often misread and forgotten section, are both erronious and absurdly illogical. Proof of intentional and strict limitations on the authority and power of Congress: Congressional jurisdiction of power is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.
Please do not confuse this with social welfare as we know it today, or public charity. The two are distinctly different as will be addressed later in detail The Constitution allows only the means which are necessary, not those which are merely convenient, for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed - Thomas Jefferson, 1791 Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
Proof that both the Father of the Constitution and unquestionably our nations foremost expert on the Constitution, James Madison, AND the Father of American Independence, Thomas Jefferson, specifically acknowledging Congressional powers to be strictly limited and defined - quite a long shot from today! Jefferson and Madison were by no means representative of the opinions of all the framers. They were both strict constitutionalists representative of those very fearful of the strength of the new government. For that reason I turn to the other side most represented in Alexander Hamilton - one that believed in a looser interpretation. This specification of particulars the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8 evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.
What others have to say: One day around 1830 Congress was considering a measure to grant a sum from the public money to a widow of a recently deceased veteran. The measure was expected to pass unanimously until a Congressman rose to the floor. It was none other than the famous frontiersman and lawmaker Davy Crockett: Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, as any man in this House. But we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity;
|
http://csua.com/feed/