Questions for libertarians

[flaja]

If the Constitution is not a living documents whose meaning can be interpreted so as to make it adaptable to the nation’s current socio-economic conditions and prevailing geo-political situation, explain what the Constitution (not what any of the individual signers) means by general welfare of the United States and commerce? Where in the Constitution are these terms defined?

 

[flaja]

What, none of you libs can find the definition of either general welfare or commerce in the Constitution that you all insist is a definite, unchanging document?

I guess the Constitution must be an interpretable document after all.

 

[Ikari]

Yeah, how about I make a post, wait an hour and if there's no response declare victory. YAY!

Commerce is commerce. The federal government oversees interstate commerce and international commerce. General welfare is just that, it's general welfare. General welfare is mentioned only in the preamble, and in terms of why the government is being created. The powers mandated to the government are then done so through out the remainder of the Constitution with the purpose of government in mind.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

It's been an hour.... IKARI WINS! :mrgreen:

 

[Ikari]

It's been an hour.... IKARI WINS! :mrgreen:

Yeehaaa!

Cocaine and hookers for everybody!

 

[samsmart]

Yeehaaa!

Cocaine and hookers for everybody!

You just won my vote.

 

[Phoenix]

Yeah, how about I make a post, wait an hour and if there's no response declare victory. YAY!

Commerce is commerce. The federal government oversees interstate commerce and international commerce. General welfare is just that, it's general welfare. General welfare is mentioned only in the preamble, and in terms of why the government is being created. The powers mandated to the government are then done so through out the remainder of the Constitution with the purpose of government in mind.

the bolded portion is incorrect.

Article 1 section 8

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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

[Ethereal]

If the Constitution is not a living documents whose meaning can be interpreted so as to make it adaptable to the nation’s current socio-economic conditions and prevailing geo-political situation, explain what the Constitution (not what any of the individual signers) means by general welfare of the United States and commerce? Where in the Constitution are these terms defined?

The Constitution means what the Founders intended it to mean, which means the General Welfare Clause is best explained by them.

Here's what Madison says:

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.

government quotes

[Also]

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? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2:§§ 904--25, 927--30, 946--52, 954--70, 972--76, 988

Here's what Jefferson says:

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that "all powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people" [XIIth. Amendmt.]. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless feild of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18: Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bill for Establishing a National Bank

[Also]

To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.

[Also]

Aided by a little sophistry on the words "general welfare," [the federal branch claim] a right to do not only the acts to effect that which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for the general welfare.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Interpreting the Constitution

Hamilton, however, had a far more liberal view of the general welfare clause:

The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

He goes on to outline the limitations of the General Welfare Clause:

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

 

[flaja]

Yeah, how about I make a post, wait an hour and if there's no response declare victory. YAY!

By the time I returned to this thread my original post had been read 6 times with no word of reply from any of you libertarians.

Commerce is commerce.

And commerce is what?

The Constitution does not give a legal definition of commerce let alone set forth any criteria for determining when commerce crosses state lines or our national boundary. The Constitution leaves the details up to the Congress, the Courts and ultimately the voters.

In the Schechter case the Supreme Court declared that the Schechter poultry company was too small to be engaged in interstate or international commerce for congressional regulatory purposes even though the company engaged in interstate commerce by selling chickens that it bought from suppliers from outside New York State. But in later cases, such as United States v. Darby Lumber Company and West Coast Hotel v. Parrish the Court defined interstate commerce is broader terms and thus gave Congress greater regulatory power.

General welfare is just that, it's general welfare. General welfare is mentioned only in the preamble,

Wrong. U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, “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…” The Supreme Court used this provision to declare the Social Security Act constitutional. As with commerce, the Constitution does not define general welfare or provide any requirements for determining what it is. What is and is not the general welfare of the United States are political, not constitutional, questions because the Constitution was designed to be interpreted.

 

[flaja]

The Constitution means what the Founders intended it to mean, which means the General Welfare Clause is best explained by them.

I guess these same founding fathers thought slavery was in the general welfare of the United States. Ditto for killing the Indians in order to steal their land.

 

[flaja]

The Constitution means what the Founders intended it to mean, which means the General Welfare Clause is best explained by them.

Here's what Madison says:



Here's what Jefferson says:



Hamilton, however, had a far more liberal view of the general welfare clause:



He goes on to outline the limitations of the General Welfare Clause:

The restrictions that Hamilton placed on the general welfare power are beside the point for this discussion. The fact that Hamilton and Madison had divergent views on what the term general welfare means- and both thought it necessary to clarify what they thought it means- shows that the Constitution was designed to be interpreted. Its meaning is not absolute in every minute detail.

There is no such thing as original intent because the Founding Fathers, i.e., the men that wrote the Constitution, did not all have the same original intent.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

The restrictions that Hamilton placed on the general welfare power are beside the point for this discussion. The fact that Hamilton and Madison had divergent views on what the term general welfare means- and both thought it necessary to clarify what they thought it means- shows that the Constitution was designed to be interpreted. Its meaning is not absolute in every minute detail.

There is no such thing as original intent because the Founding Fathers, i.e., the men that wrote the Constitution, did not all have the same original intent.

And they had to compormise. The fact of the matter is that if a Constitution can be reinterpreted to whatever one wants, it's meaningless

 

[flaja]

And they had to compormise. The fact of the matter is that if a Constitution can be reinterpreted to whatever one wants, it's meaningless

A constitution whose meaning is set in stone would also be meaningless since it wouldn't last long because it would be too out of date to be useful after a generation or so. If it weren't for our ability to interpret the Constitution in order to adapt it, it would have been amended beyond recognition or completely re-written by now.

 

[Shadow Serious]

In such fields as Mathematics there are at base either Axioms or Definitions which include terms which are not defined and the meaning is assumed. Likewise in the Constitution of the United States of America there are terms which are likewise not defined but assumed.

And as in mathematics any valid system must be constant i.e. that a theorem and its negation cannot both be true, the Constitution must also prohibit some "interpretations" as not being true to what the constitutions means aka False Theorems while also saying at one time that the negation was true.

And as in every system or field in mathematics there are 'theorems" that are not provable by that system. There will be areas that are not covered in the Constitution and that means that they cannot be read into it.

But just as there are many different Geometries which the Parallel Axiom is different. There are not other Constitutions other than the one we have and its truths are limited to its own axioms and not what can be read into it or ignoring or excusing them for a mete end.

I'll try to find more in this vein if needed

 

[flaja]

the Constitution must also prohibit some "interpretations" as not being true to what the constitutions means aka False Theorems while also saying at one time that the negation was true.

How do you determine what parts of the Constitution are not interpretable without engaging in interpretation in the first place? You have to interpret the entire document in order to determine which parts cannot be interpretable.

There will be areas that are not covered in the Constitution and that means that they cannot be read into it.

Give some examples.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

By the time I returned to this thread my original post had been read 6 times with no word of reply from any of you libertarians.
.

So all six reads were done by libertarians? FAIL

 

[Ikari]

A constitution whose meaning is set in stone would also be meaningless since it wouldn't last long because it would be too out of date to be useful after a generation or so. If it weren't for our ability to interpret the Constitution in order to adapt it, it would have been amended beyond recognition or completely re-written by now.

It's not set in stone, there's an amendment process. It's just that you can't ignore it or pretend it says stuff that it doesn't at your whim.

 

[flaja]

So all six reads were done by libertarians? FAIL

You have proof that they were not? Since I addressed my questions specifically to libertarians I have every reason to assume that only libertarians would have any reason to read them.

 

[flaja]

It's not set in stone, there's an amendment process. It's just that you can't ignore it or pretend it says stuff that it doesn't at your whim.

This amendment process allows a very small minority to persistently thwart the will of the majority. If nothing about our government could ever be changed without an amendment and this minority always prevented amendments that the majority wanted, the majority would have caused so much social unrest that the entire country would have fallen apart by now.

 

[Ethereal]

This amendment process allows a very small minority to persistently thwart the will of the majority. If nothing about our government could ever be changed without an amendment and this minority always prevented amendments that the majority wanted, the majority would have caused so much social unrest that the entire country would have fallen apart by now.

Our Constitution is designed to protect the minority from the majority. We are a nation of laws, not men.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

A constitution whose meaning is set in stone would also be meaningless since it wouldn't last long because it would be too out of date to be useful after a generation or so. If it weren't for our ability to interpret the Constitution in order to adapt it, it would have been amended beyond recognition or completely re-written by now.

No one said set in stone. There's an amendment process for when America gets reletively close to a consensus. However, there's a huge differance between near consensus and 50.1% of the vote

 

[Ikari]

This amendment process allows a very small minority to persistently thwart the will of the majority. If nothing about our government could ever be changed without an amendment and this minority always prevented amendments that the majority wanted, the majority would have caused so much social unrest that the entire country would have fallen apart by now.

It was meant that way to protect the minority from the majority. If something really needs to be done, you can pass an amendment. Otherwise, it can be handled at the State and community level.

 

[cpwill]

I guess these same founding fathers thought slavery was in the general welfare of the United States.

Actually they thought slavery was dangerous to the generous welfare of the United States. They just also were aware that attempts to solve the issue would lead to the kind of cataclysm that it produced 75 years later. The nation at that point could not have survived such a conflict.

 

[Harshaw]

A constitution whose meaning is set in stone would also be meaningless since it wouldn't last long because it would be too out of date to be useful after a generation or so. If it weren't for our ability to interpret the Constitution in order to adapt it, it would have been amended beyond recognition or completely re-written by now.

Or, the Federal government would still be operating within the limitations it was intended to.

 

[cpwill]

The restrictions that Hamilton placed on the general welfare power are beside the point for this discussion. The fact that Hamilton and Madison had divergent views on what the term general welfare means- and both thought it necessary to clarify what they thought it means- shows that the Constitution was designed to be interpreted. Its meaning is not absolute in every minute detail.

There is no such thing as original intent because the Founding Fathers, i.e., the men that wrote the Constitution, did not all have the same original intent.

Firstly, I would say that you are on shaky ground indeed if you are going to base your argument for an open Constitution upon a single - later qualified - statement by Hamilton. This is also the man who thought we should have chucked the Presidency in favor for another Kingship, and whose drives gave us our first attempt to sieze dictatorial powers on the Federal Level. The man had little to no respect for the Constitution itself except inasmuch as it would serve Hamiltons' preferred policies.

now MADISON; since he is the one who in effect authored the Constitution, is a much more reliable witness.

as Jefferson (who at the time was sort of a mentor to Madison) put it: "The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

By creating the doctrine of a "living constitution" we of the 20th Century have created for ourselves a set of little kings. Unelected, and unnacountable, they are both soveriegn within their realm and hold the ability to define their realm as they see fit. Unchecked and Unbalanced, such a Judiciary cannot help but over time sieze powers properly left to the other branches of government, destroying that delicate balance upon which practical protection of our freedoms depend.

The Constitution is fundamentally Contract Law. We the People agree amongst ourselves that This is How We Shall Be Governed. If you think that Contract Law is that loose; I suggest you contact your bank and inform them that the "spirit of the times" has moved you to discover that your mortgage agreement no longer requires you to make payments. I suspect they will set you straight rather quickly.