Constitutional interpretation

[Paul191145]

And you are wrong again.



I’ve never rejected original meaning. I’ve rejected the trash of original intent. Original meaning and original intent are the same. Hence, there’s no “at odds” with rejecting original intent and accepting original meaning.

Indeed, the original meaning crowd, J Scalia among them, rejected original intent and espoused original meaning.

So, no, I’ve rejected nothing more than “original intent.” I accept original meaning.



Vacuous. Another post that doesn’t address the substance of my argument. Another post factually and historically wrong as your other revisionist history, because you have made many Strawmen.



I’ve not many any contradiction. Where in my argument is there a contradiction? It doesn’t exist, and this is another failure on your behalf to read and understand the plain English and failure to properly following the logic of the argument, as you did by Strawmanning that I said you were left wing or liberal.

There’s no contradiction, and you are welcome to attempt to show one.

You continue to contradict yourself, not sure how you fail to see this.

 

[NotreDame]

You continue to contradict yourself, not sure how you fail to see this.

I “fail to see” your fiction. Factually, there is no “contradiction.” Hence, I cannot “see” what doesn’t exist, that’s your demonstrated forte.

Now, you can attempt to factually show a contradiction. Or just claim one exists and nothing more, paralleling your claim to the notion unicorns exist.

 

[Paul191145]

I “fail to see” your fiction. Factually, there is no “contradiction.” Hende, I cannot “see” what doesn’t exist, that’s your demonstrated forte.

Now, you can attempt to factually show a contradiction. Or just claim one exists and nothing more, paralleling your claim to the notion unicorns exist.

Your words.
"Original meaning and original intent are the same. Hence, there’s no “at odds” with rejecting original intent and accepting original meaning.

Indeed, the original meaning crowd, J Scalia among them, rejected original intent and espoused original meaning.

So, no, I’ve rejected nothing more than “original intent.” I accept original meaning."

Try reading them carefully, the contradiction is abundantly obvious.

 

[NotreDame]

Your words.
"Original meaning and original intent are the same. Hence, there’s no “at odds” with rejecting original intent and accepting original meaning.

Indeed, the original meaning crowd, J Scalia among them, rejected original intent and espoused original meaning.

So, no, I’ve rejected nothing more than “original intent.” I accept original meaning."

Try reading them carefully, the contradiction is abundantly obvious.

Oh, maybe you should try “reading them carefully” as opposed to your selective editing that affects what it said.

First, that is not the prose/post you originally alleged to have a contradiction.

Your alleged contradiction was in response to post number 223.
Post in thread 'Constitutional interpretation'
https://debatepolitics.com/threads/constitutional-interpretation.485485/post-1076338990

As you alleged a contradiction to post 223 in your post number of 224.
Post in thread 'Constitutional interpretation'
https://debatepolitics.com/threads/constitutional-interpretation.485485/post-1076339021

And you alleged in post 224 that specific statements in 223 as contradictory, and they were: You highlighted “The fact remains” I’ve never abandoned original meaning and between the two of us, I was using original meaning whereas you kept referring to the intellectually bankrupt “original intent….So what? Longevity of an interpretation doesn’t establish the interpretation is correct. Longevity doesn’t show what a text says.”

So, to keep track, you have not demonstrated a contradiction between those statements I made in 223.

So, apparently you now abandon that doomed to fail attempt to show a contradiction and instead choose to unwisely focus upon a typo with your own use of selective editing of post 225.

There’s clearly a typo. Your selective editing was intentional.

My complete statement was: “I’ve never rejected original meaning. I’ve rejected the trash of original intent. Original meaning and original intent are the same. Hence, there’s no “at odds” with rejecting original intent and accepting original meaning….So, no, I’ve rejected nothing more than “original intent.” I accept original meaning.”

Hence, there is a typo as the phrase “Original meaning and original intent are the same” was a typo and is to say “are not the same” and this logical deduction is based on the repeated use of the word “rejecting” or “rejected” and “trash” in relation to original intent and “accepting original meaning.”

In addition, the history of my prior posts shows I have rejected original intent as different from original meaning.

I said:

“The fact remains” I’ve never abandoned original meaning and between the two of us, I was using original meaning whereas you kept referring to the intellectually bankrupt “original intent.” 223

“Rather, you obsessed over original intent, which is a vacuous interpretative approach.” 210.

“Original intent” was the 1980s and died with the ascendcy of Scalia and others who rebuked original intent and articulated original meaning.” 205

“And you should try reading what you linked to because the opening line is to original meaning by Scalia and not the junk you favor of “original intent.” 205

So, no, there’s no contradiction in 223 or 225. Just a typo in 225 that is illuminated by the other statements in 225 and in other posts.

Yet, this is the desperation of someone who has made demonstrated mistakes time and time again, resort to a typo that is easily understood as a typo given the other statements in the post and in other posts.

So, no, there’s no contradiction, again, you see fiction.

 

[Paul191145]

Oh, maybe you should try “reading them carefully” as opposed to your selective editing that affects what it said.

First, that is not the prose/post you originally alleged to have a contradiction.

Your alleged contradiction was in response to post number 223.
Post in thread 'Constitutional interpretation'
https://debatepolitics.com/threads/constitutional-interpretation.485485/post-1076338990

As you alleged a contradiction to post 223 in your post number of 224.
Post in thread 'Constitutional interpretation'
https://debatepolitics.com/threads/constitutional-interpretation.485485/post-1076339021

And you alleged in post 224 that specific statements in 223 as contradictory, and they were: You highlighted “The fact remains” I’ve never abandoned original meaning and between the two of us, I was using original meaning whereas you kept referring to the intellectually bankrupt “original intent….So what? Longevity of an interpretation doesn’t establish the interpretation is correct. Longevity doesn’t show what a text says.”

So, to keep track, you have not demonstrated a contradiction between those statements I made in 223.

So, apparently you now abandon that doomed to fail attempt to show a contradiction and instead choose to unwisely focus upon a typo with your own use of selective editing of post 225.

There’s clearly a typo. Your selective editing was intentional.

My complete statement was: “I’ve never rejected original meaning. I’ve rejected the trash of original intent. Original meaning and original intent are the same. Hence, there’s no “at odds” with rejecting original intent and accepting original meaning….So, no, I’ve rejected nothing more than “original intent.” I accept original meaning.”

Hence, there is a typo as the phrase “Original meaning and original intent are the same” was a typo and is to say “are not the same” and this logical deduction is based on the repeated use of the word “rejecting” or “rejected” and “trash” in relation to original intent and “accepting original meaning.”

In addition, the history of my prior posts shows I have rejected original intent as different from original meaning.

I said:

“The fact remains” I’ve never abandoned original meaning and between the two of us, I was using original meaning whereas you kept referring to the intellectually bankrupt “original intent.” 223

“Rather, you obsessed over original intent, which is a vacuous interpretative approach.” 210.

“Original intent” was the 1980s and died with the ascendcy of Scalia and others who rebuked original intent and articulated original meaning.” 205

“And you should try reading what you linked to because the opening line is to original meaning by Scalia and not the junk you favor of “original intent.” 205

So, no, there’s no contradiction in 223 or 225. Just a typo in 225 that is illuminated by the other statements in 225 and in other posts.

Yet, this is the desperation of someone who has made demonstrated mistakes time and time again, resort to a typo that is easily understood as a typo given the other statements in the post and in other posts.

So, no, there’s no contradiction, again, you see fiction.

LOL, sure buddy, keep back pedaling.

 

[natman]

Roosevelt was known to "bully" the SCOTUS with threats of "stacking the Court" in order to get his New Deal program supported.

Some things never change.

 

[NotreDame]

LOL, sure buddy, keep back pedaling.

No “back pedaling” and the facts show it.

Your claim of contradiction in post 223 was your original beginning point. You never showed any contradiction with statements in 223. The links and facts show it.

Then, like a horrible rerun, you fail to look at the plain English and fail to follow the logic of the argument, and compound this wkrh selective editing.

You actually believe it is rational to conclude there’s no typo in the phrase “Original meaning and original intent are the same,” despite the plain English elsewhere in the post, that you intentionally elided by selective editing, that rationally shows there must be a typo.

The use of words and phrases of “I’ve never rejected original meaning. I’ve rejected the trash of original intent. Original meaning and original intent are the same. Hence, there’s no “at odds” with rejecting original intent and acceptingoriginal meaning….So, no, I’ve rejected nothing more than “original intent.”

The use of the words “rejected the trash of original intent…rejecting original intent and accepting original meaning…I’ve never rejected nothing more than original intent” shows the two aren’t treated the same as one is “trash” and one I have rejected such “trash” while “accepting” the non-trash.

So, no, there’s no “back pedaling” as the plain English, the words used, the logic of disparaging one but not the other, show a typo.

Again, the problem is you do not follow the plain text English or the logic of an argument.

 

[Paul191145]

No “back pedaling” and the facts show it.

Your claim of contradiction in post 223 was your original beginning point. You never showed any contradiction with statements in 223. The links and facts show it.

Then, like a horrible rerun, you fail to look at the plain English and fail to follow the logic of the argument, and compound this wkrh selective editing.

You actually believe it is rational to conclude there’s no typo in the phrase “Original meaning and original intent are the same,” despite the plain English elsewhere in the post, that you intentionally elided by selective editing, that rationally shows there must be a typo.

The use of words and phrases of “I’ve never rejected original meaning. I’ve rejected the trash of original intent. Original meaning and original intent are the same. Hence, there’s no “at odds” with rejecting original intent and acceptingoriginal meaning….So, no, I’ve rejected nothing more than “original intent.”

The use of the words “rejected the trash of original intent…rejecting original intent and accepting original meaning…I’ve never rejected nothing more than original intent” shows the two aren’t treated the same as one is “trash” and one I have rejected such “trash” while “accepting” the non-trash.

So, no, there’s no “back pedaling” as the plain English, the words used, the logic of disparaging one but not the other, show a typo.

Again, the problem is you do not follow the plain text English or the logic of an argument.

OK dude, you insist that original meaning and/or intent are the same thing, yet you accept one and reject the other. Before that you have stated that you are opposed to "living Constitutionalism" yet are opposed to returning to the original interpretation that stood from ratification until 1936 simply due to "plain text". You have all but insisted that the framers of the Constitution simply didn't understand the language they were using, and we just figured it out in 1936. So basically, according to you, the entire Constitution should be null and void because those stupid framers didn't understand simple language. Also, you seem to think that some people's written opinions on the GW clause, that had zero effect on the interpretation of it in their lifetimes, somehow became relevant. Seriously, take a reality pill and do a little reasonable rationalization.

 

[NotreDame]

OK dude, you insist that original meaning and/or intent are the same thing, yet you accept one and reject the other. Before that you have stated that you are opposed to "living Constitutionalism" yet are opposed to returning to the original interpretation that stood from ratification until 1936 simply due to "plain text". You have all but insisted that the framers of the Constitution simply didn't understand the language they were using, and we just figured it out in 1936. So basically, according to you, the entire Constitution should be null and void because those stupid framers didn't understand simple language. Also, you seem to think that some people's written opinions on the GW clause, that had zero effect on the interpretation of it in their lifetimes, somehow became relevant. Seriously, take a reality pill and do a little reasonable rationalization.

OK dude, you insist that original meaning and/or intent are the same thing,

“Ok dude” I’ve never insisted original meaning and intent are the “same thing.”

Again, you fail to read the plain English of my posts. In several posts I’ve either called “original intent” “garbage,” or “intellectually bankrupt” and I’ve “rejected” original intent.

I’ve never said original meaning and original intent are the same.

Get a clue.

 

[Paul191145]

“Ok dude” I’ve never insisted original meaning and intent are the “same thing.”

Again, you fail to read the plain English of my posts. In several posts I’ve either called “original intent” “garbage,” or “intellectually bankrupt” and I’ve “rejected” original intent.

I’ve never said original meaning and original intent are the same.

Get a clue.

Go back and read your own words hero, then you go buy a clue. BTW, if you reject original intent, you are a living Constitutionalist, just that simple.

 

[NotreDame]

Seriously, take a reality pill and do a little reasonable rationalization.

That is comical…coming from the person who uses ad hominems repeatedly across this forum, has demonstrated they do not read the plain text properly, by way of example butchering the phrase “common denominator,” repeatedly use Strawman reasoning. You are in desperate need of the reality pill and reasonable rationalization because factually your arguments have been a train wreck of poor reasoning ad nauseum.

This recent post by you is only the latest iteration of poor logic.

Constitutionalism" yet are opposed to returning to the original interpretation that stood from ratification until 1936 simply due to "plain text"

Plain text meaning is “original interpretation.” What the plain text says is the original interpretation.

Hence, the plain text of “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech” says Congress cannot make a law infringing free speech. That was the original interpretation in 1790 and today because what the plain text says is the original interpretation.

And you’ve never provided a rational reason for ignoring plain text. Ever. Ignoring the plain text, especially in the U.S. where written law is paramount, isn’t rational.

There’s no sound reason to interpret the plain text of “the box is empty” to mean there’s soemthing in the box. Yet, by your logic, that is a rational interpretation of the plain text.

There’s no sound reason to interpret the plain text of “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech” to mean Congress can pass legislation depriving people of their free speech rights. Yet. Your logic says that is a rational interpretation of the plain text despite the fact the plain text says otherwise.

The plain text is paramount and is the original interpretation. You are seeking to rationalize why plain text can be ignored and have not done so.

You have all but insisted that the framers of the Constitution simply didn't understand the language they were using,

No, you’ve “all but insisted that” Strawman garbage. And the reason you persistently resort to a Strawman is because you can’t substantively address what I’ve said. Hence, you make up arguments and statements I never made.

So basically, according to you, the entire Constitution should be null and void because those stupid framers didn't understand simple language.

The above is your Strawman argument, because you can’t address my argument. I never wrote anything remotely close to the above. You repeatedly resort to formal fallacies because you can’t make a substantive retort.

Also, you seem to think that some people's written opinions on the GW clause, that had zero effect on the interpretation of it in their lifetimes, somehow became relevant.

Nope. Wrong again. But find the post that shows otherwise.

 

[NotreDame]

Go back and read your own words hero, then you go buy a clue. BTW, if you reject original intent, you are a living Constitutionalist, just that simple

Ah, smell that, it is the false dilemma logic of X or Y, we can now add to your insults, ad hominems, and Strawman argument. Your X or Y is false.

It is false that to reject original intent is to accept and follow Living Constitutionalism.

The reason is there’s an option Z, plain text and original meaning. Yes, Scalia, Barnett, Gorsuch, Easterbrook, and many others, all reject the garbage of original intent and adhere to plain text, Textualism, original meaning.

I plain stated several times in plain English, I’ve rejected original intent and accept original meaning.

Original intent and original aren’t and never have been the same. Ever.

So, no, your false dilemma is just false. I can reject the intellectually bankrupt original intent and not be a living constitutionalist as I adhere to plain text meaning, Textualism/original meaning. Pretty simple.

Second, you need to “read” my “own words” as I demonstrated factually I never said original meaning and original intent are the same.
Post in thread 'Constitutional interpretation'
https://debatepolitics.com/threads/constitutional-interpretation.485485/post-1076339153

Post in thread 'Constitutional interpretation'
https://debatepolitics.com/threads/constitutional-interpretation.485485/post-1076339823

I’ve factually shown I treated original meaning as different from original meaning.

Finally, I’ve had enough of your personal insults, like many others. Knock it off.

 

[Paul191145]

Ah, smell that, it is the false dilemma logic of X or Y, we can now add to your insults, ad hominems, and Strawman argument. Your X or Y is false.

It is false that to reject original intent is to accept and follow Living Constitutionalism.

The reason is there’s an option Z, plain text and original meaning. Yes, Scalia, Barnett, Gorsuch, Easterbrook, and many others, all reject the garbage of original intent and adhere to plain text, Textualism, original meaning.

I plain stated several times in plain English, I’ve rejected original intent and accept original meaning.

Original intent and original aren’t and never have been the same. Ever.

So, no, your false dilemma is just false. I can reject the intellectually bankrupt original intent and not be a living constitutionalist as I adhere to plain text meaning, Textualism/original meaning. Pretty simple.

Second, you need to “read” my “own words” as I demonstrated factually I never said original meaning and original intent are the same.
Post in thread 'Constitutional interpretation'
https://debatepolitics.com/threads/constitutional-interpretation.485485/post-1076339153

Post in thread 'Constitutional interpretation'
https://debatepolitics.com/threads/constitutional-interpretation.485485/post-1076339823

I’ve factually shown I treated original meaning as different from original meaning.

Finally, I’ve had enough of your personal insults, like many others. Knock it off.

I already explained it to you, but I can't understand it for you. You certainly are sensitive.

 

[NotreDame]

I already explained it to you, but I can't understand it for you. You certainly are sensitive.

“I already explained it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.” I made a demonstration with plain English how you sought to exploit a typo and such a typo was transparent. Yet, you again ignored plain text clues for your end result driven logic.

This is simple. The plain text of the G and W vests a power to Congress.

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”

The word “shall” and the accompanying conjunctions say Congress “shall” have the power to tax and to pay the debts and provide for common defence and general welfare.

There’s no rational argument or reason to ignore the plain text meaning. In a nation of laws the text of the law is paramount, as it permits the government and the people to know their rights, safeguard rights, establish obligations, liabilities, limits of power, limits of obligations, etcetera. This is extremely difficult if not impossible where law doesn’t mean, read, or say consistent to the plain text.

And just as a matter hermeneutics, the plain text meaning is paramount.

A phrase in a book or some other medium of, “The box is empty,” is rightfully understood to meaning there’s nothing in the box, the plain text meaning. A reading of such a phrase to mean there’s a cat in the box is a departure from the plain text and inconsistent with the words used.

You seek to either ignore or abandon the plain text as neither your or Madison’s interpretation isn’t within the plain text. That it is Madison speaking is not, as I argued previously, a sound reason to ignore the plain text meaning. That Madison’s view has longevity, so does Hamilton’s, is not a sound reason for either view as consistent with the plain text.

The palpable, underlying issue here are the facts, the plain English words used, as they are an impediment to your and Madison’s view. Rather than amend your view to the facts, you have sought to justify why they can and should be ignored. The justifications are sound or strong.

 

[Paul191145]

“I already explained it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.” I made a demonstration with plain English how you sought to exploit a typo and such a typo was transparent. Yet, you again ignored plain text clues for your end result driven logic.

This is simple. The plain text of the G and W vests a power to Congress.

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”

The word “shall” and the accompanying conjunctions say Congress “shall” have the power to tax and to pay the debts and provide for common defence and general welfare.

There’s no rational argument or reason to ignore the plain text meaning. In a nation of laws the text of the law is paramount, as it permits the government and the people to know their rights, safeguard rights, establish obligations, liabilities, limits of power, limits of obligations, etcetera. This is extremely difficult if not impossible where law doesn’t mean, read, or say consistent to the plain text.

And just as a matter hermeneutics, the plain text meaning is paramount.

A phrase in a book or some other medium of, “The box is empty,” is rightfully understood to meaning there’s nothing in the box, the plain text meaning. A reading of such a phrase to mean there’s a cat in the box is a departure from the plain text and inconsistent with the words used.

You seek to either ignore or abandon the plain text as neither your or Madison’s interpretation isn’t within the plain text. That it is Madison speaking is not, as I argued previously, a sound reason to ignore the plain text meaning. That Madison’s view has longevity, so does Hamilton’s, is not a sound reason for either view as consistent with the plain text.

The palpable, underlying issue here are the facts, the plain English words used, as they are an impediment to your and Madison’s view. Rather than amend your view to the facts, you have sought to justify why they can and should be ignored. The justifications are sound or strong.

I'm well aware of all this, and that same plain text took on an entirely different meaning prior to 1936, that lasted since the ratification of the Constitution. If the interpretation adopted then can essentially declare the original meaning or intent null and void, then the same can be done with the entire document. There are supposed to be express limitations on government, that's why the powers are enumerated, but the GW clause has been used as a catch all for whatever Congress wishes to fund increasingly so ever since 1936. You are welcome to stick to your guns and insist that the GW clause gives far reaching powers that essentially negate the necessity for those enumerations, but I will continue to disagree.

 

[HangLow]

​

 

[NotreDame]

I'm well aware of all this, and that same plain text took on an entirely different meaning prior to 1936, that lasted since the ratification of the Constitution. If the interpretation adopted then can essentially declare the original meaning or intent null and void, then the same can be done with the entire document. There are supposed to be express limitations on government, that's why the powers are enumerated, but the GW clause has been used as a catch all for whatever Congress wishes to fund increasingly so ever since 1936. You are welcome to stick to your guns and insist that the GW clause gives far reaching powers that essentially negate the necessity for those enumerations, but I will continue to disagree.

and that same plain text took on an entirely different meaning prior to 1936

No, this is factually inaccurate. The Hamiltonian view preceded 1936 and had its followers and adherents prior to 1936.

It is historically and factually inaccurate to say there was only one view and interpretation prior to 1936. There was the Madisonnian view and the Hamiltonian view prior to 1936.

You just elevate, without sound reasoning, Madison’s view over Hamilton’s, despite that Madison’s view is contradicted by the plain text

If the interpretation adopted then can essentially declare the original meaning or intent null and void, then the same can be done with the entire document.

No, the “original meaning” is consistent with the Hamiltonian view, the view adopted by SCOTUS in 1936. So, there isn’t any adoption of an interpretation in 1936 resulting in “essentially declare original meaning null and void.”

There are supposed to be express limitations on government, that's why the powers are enumerated, but the GW clause has been used as a catch all for whatever Congress wishes to fund increasingly so ever since 1936.

But not because of the Hamiltonian view adopted in Butler. The Hamiltonian view is not compatible with a “catch all for whatever Congress wishes.” You have identified a false cause, and scapegoated, the Hamiltonian view.

You are welcome to stick to your guns and insist that the GW clause gives far reaching powers that essentially negate the necessity for those enumerations, but I will continue to disagree.

Except this has never been my view or argument. I’ve never taken the view the there isn’t a “necessity for those enumerations.”

My “stick to your guns” has been a more nuanced argument. My argument has been GW is a grant of power as the plain text meaning shows, along with any original meaning.

Next, I’ve refuted the Madison view the GW isn’t a grant of power, an irrational view since this view is contradicted by the plain text. Which is to say Madison is wrong, the plain English of the GW does grant Congress power. He is no more entitled to rationally ignore the plain text and plain text meaning than anyone else.

Madison cannot logically be right as to what the text says because he is Madison. The identity of a person doesn’t make them right as to what a text says. After all, it is the text, the words in the text, that is speaking, and no one can logically say the text can say and mean what some specific person alleged on the basis of the status or identity of the person. The writing of the text is determinative and controlling.

As a result, I refuted Madison’s view the GW isn’t a grant of power at all but instead the GW is to only be satisfied by the subsequent enumerated powers. There’s nothing anywhere in the plain text expressly, explicitly, or impliedly stating the GW isn’t a grant of power and is to only be achieved by the subsequent powers.

The facts and evidence are the plain text, the written law. If the written law isn’t controlling, then there is little to no rational point of written law.

 

[Paul191145]

No, this is factually inaccurate. The Hamiltonian view preceded 1936 and had its followers and adherents prior to 1936.

It is historically and factually inaccurate to say there was only one view and interpretation prior to 1936. There was the Madisonnian view and the Hamiltonian view prior to 1936.

You just elevate, without sound reasoning, Madison’s view over Hamilton’s, despite that Madison’s view is contradicted by the plain text



No, the “original meaning” is consistent with the Hamiltonian view, the view adopted by SCOTUS in 1936. So, there isn’t any adoption of an interpretation in 1936 resulting in “essentially declare original meaning null and void.”



But not because of the Hamiltonian view adopted in Butler. The Hamiltonian view is not compatible with a “catch all for whatever Congress wishes.” You have identified a false cause, and scapegoated, the Hamiltonian view.



Except this has never been my view or argument. I’ve never taken the view the there isn’t a “necessity for those enumerations.”

My “stick to your guns” has been a more nuanced argument. My argument has been GW is a grant of power as the plain text meaning shows, along with any original meaning.

Next, I’ve refuted the Madison view the GW isn’t a grant of power, an irrational view since this view is contradicted by the plain text. Which is to say Madison is wrong, the plain English of the GW does grant Congress power. He is no more entitled to rationally ignore the plain text and plain text meaning than anyone else.

Madison cannot logically be right as to what the text says because he is Madison. The identity of a person doesn’t make them right as to what a text says. After all, it is the text, the words in the text, that is speaking, and no one can logically say the text can say and mean what some specific person alleged on the basis of the status or identity of the person. The writing of the text is determinative and controlling.

As a result, I refuted Madison’s view the GW isn’t a grant of power at all but instead the GW is to only be satisfied by the subsequent enumerated powers. There’s nothing anywhere in the plain text expressly, explicitly, or impliedly stating the GW isn’t a grant of power and is to only be achieved by the subsequent powers.

The facts and evidence are the plain text, the written law. If the written law isn’t controlling, then there is little to no rational point of written law.

The fact remains, the interpretation WAS changed in 1936 via U.S. v Butler, and the fed gov has used it as an excuse to expand dramatically ever since, feel free to deny that FACT as well if you wish. Your "plain text" argument is still not in keeping with the original meaning or intent, and subsequently allows for the potential nullification of the entire document, but I don't expect you to accept that.

 

[Glitch]

As a result, I refuted Madison’s view the GW isn’t a grant of power at all but instead the GW is to only be satisfied by the subsequent enumerated powers. There’s nothing anywhere in the plain text expressly, explicitly, or impliedly stating the GW isn’t a grant of power and is to only be achieved by the subsequent powers.

Actually, there is if you actually read what is written:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" {emphasis added}

The power being granted to Congress is the power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises." For which the purpose of such power is to "pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

That very plainly states that general welfare is the purpose of the power, and not a power unto it self.

Lets assume your Hamilton assumption is the correct one, and the General Welfare is a power all unto itself. Then there would not be a need for a US Constitution. Congress would be empowered to do whatever they pleased for the General Welfare, rending all other powers granted to Congress redundant and unnecessary and eliminating any acknowledged rights along with it. Congress would have absolute dictatorial control over every aspect of our lives under their power of doing whatever they pleased for the General Welfare.

It should be obvious to even the uneducated that no such power was ever intended. Congress has the power to levy taxes for the purpose of paying the debts, providing for the common defense, and the general welfare, as the US Constitution plainly states.

 

[Indydave]

Can anyone rationalize to me how the General Welfare Clause, at the beginning of Article I, Section 8, somehow gives Congress nigh on unlimited power? Yet all the enumerated powers come afterward. Seriously, it just doesn't make sense to ascribe unlimited power, then start enumerating authorities after that. Additionally, if it were meant to be so, why wasn't that the interpretation prior to 1936? For anyone reading this who is unaware, the New Deal SCOTUS case US v Butler had an emerging Constitutional interpretation that persists to this day which has allowed the federal government to expand in size and scope far beyond what it was before. IMHO this is the nation's biggest problem and the reason the national debt has increased so dramatically.

yup......but the national debt is of no consequence......remember Reagan ....first potus to have a trillion dollar national debt.....

 

[MrWonka]

Can anyone rationalize to me how the General Welfare Clause, at the beginning of Article I, Section 8, somehow gives Congress nigh on unlimited power? Yet all the enumerated powers come afterward. Seriously, it just doesn't make sense to ascribe unlimited power, then start enumerating authorities after that. Additionally, if it were meant to be so, why wasn't that the interpretation prior to 1936? For anyone reading this who is unaware, the New Deal SCOTUS case US v Butler had an emerging Constitutional interpretation that persists to this day which has allowed the federal government to expand in size and scope far beyond what it was before. IMHO this is the nation's biggest problem and the reason the national debt has increased so dramatically.

It's very simple. Prior to the industrial revolution, the actions of individual states had little or no impact on the rest of the country.
A stupid choice made by the people of Georgia, for example, had almost no effect whatsoever on people in Delaware because it was virtually impossible to ship goods or services that far in any reasonable time.
Furthermore, things like air and water pollution were virtually non-existent concepts before the Industrial Revolution.

What the Federal Government has been required to do to promote General Welfare after the Industrial Revolution is radically different, and requires far more work than what was necessary prior to it.
The invention of the steam engine, the automobile, the interstate highway system, the airplane, refrigerated trucks, the assembly line...
All of these things put states in competition with each other like never before. The result was a need to consolidate the rules of economic competition into one central government like never before.

 

[Paul191145]

yup......but the national debt is of no consequence......remember Reagan ....first potus to have a trillion dollar national debt.....

Yes I do remember Reagan, I voted for him in 1984 when I was a young soldier stationed in West Germany, but I don't see how that makes the current national debt inconsequential.

 

[Paul191145]

It's very simple. Prior to the industrial revolution, the actions of individual states had little or no impact on the rest of the country.
A stupid choice made by the people of Georgia, for example, had almost no effect whatsoever on people in Delaware because it was virtually impossible to ship goods or services that far in any reasonable time.
Furthermore, things like air and water pollution were virtually non-existent concepts before the Industrial Revolution.

What the Federal Government has been required to do to promote General Welfare after the Industrial Revolution is radically different, and requires far more work than what was necessary prior to it.
The invention of the steam engine, the automobile, the interstate highway system, the airplane, refrigerated trucks, the assembly line...
All of these things put states in competition with each other like never before. The result was a need to consolidate the rules of economic competition into one central government like never before.

Circumstances, technological or otherwise do not inherently change the meaning of the Constitution, they can be the primary driver for amendments though, but that's not the case here.

 

[MrWonka]

Circumstances, technological or otherwise do not inherently change the meaning of the Constitution, they can be the primary driver for amendments though, but that's not the case here.

They don't have to change the meaning, they change the scope. Both the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause have to expand as technology brings us all closer together.

In the 1700s, there was very little the Federal government needed to invest in to promote the general welfare or regulate to stabilize interstate congress. But modern technology has radically changed all of that.
Things like Interstate Highways, Airports, High-Speed Rail, Electric Grids, indoor plumbing, gas pipelines, scientific research, medicine, the internet, space exploration, higher education...

Today there are investments into all of these things that can radically improve the general welfare whereas during the 1700s they likely wouldn't have any value.

 

[mrjurrs]

Well, let's start where this all began: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

"The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution."

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: Show-cause order served on James Madison, Secretary of State, 1802; Records of the Supreme Court of the United States; Record Group 267; National Archives. (The document shows damage from the 1898 fire in the Capitol Building.) View Transcript The decision in this...

www.archives.gov

More clearly:

"The holding of Marbury v. Madison established the United States Supreme Court’s power to determine whether a law passed by Congress was constitutional (Judicial Review). Prior to this case, it was clear that laws conflicting with the Constitution were invalid, but the branch of government who determined validity had not been established."

Marbury v. Madison - Case Summary and Case Brief

Following is the case brief for Marbury v. Madison, United States Supreme Court, (1803) Case Summary of Marbury v. Madison Madison failed to finalize the former president’s appointment of William Marbury as Justice of the Peace. Marbury directly petitioned the Supreme Court for an equitable...

legaldictionary.net

So, the above established the power of SCOTUS to essentially rule on what is within the power of the Federal Government under the national Constitution.

But the SCOTUS' first ruling establishing an interpretation of the "general welfare clause" occurred in 1936 with United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936).

"SCOTUS held that the U.S Congress has not only the power to lay taxes to the level necessary to carry out its other powers enumerated in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, but also a broad authority to tax and spend for the "general welfare" of the United States." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Butler

This was followed by Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), a decision that held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare and so did not contravene the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis

Notice these decisions were rendered under President Franklyn Roosevelt's Administration, during the period of his New Deal efforts.

Roosevelt was known to "bully" the SCOTUS with threats of "stacking the Court" in order to get his New Deal program supported.

This is exactly why judges who claim to be originalists are f*ing clowns. The founders didn't give the court judicial review.