Re: "social responsibility" was (dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect) (fwd)

...

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:27:21 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Burnes Subject: Re: "social responsibility" was (dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect) (fwd)

...

...

Actually this is the central fallacy of those that haven't bothered to actually read the federalist papers, the anti-federalist papers or the constitution, much less say how it should be amended.

That's an easy way to brush aside having to prove your point. Especialy after having drawn a completely illogical and incorrect conclusion like this.

perhaps. it just seems so unbelievable that someone who had read all these would not understand that the US was founded as a constitutional republic with limited *powers*, a bill of *rights* that points out the rights that people already had and should protect.

...

...

If a constitutional amendment had to have been passed it would have been to give the federal government unlimited power to do what they believe is in the interests of our general welfare.

This sentence makes no sense, mind rewording it so I know specificaly what it is your talking about. No amendment has to be passed.

It makes absolute sense. The constitution enumerates the specific powers of the federal government. Please go get a copy and read it. You would have to create an amendment to give the federal government unlimited powers. For example, if the constitution had been written otherwise prohibition would never have needed an amendment. Legislators would just have said it was for the "general welfare". Having lived in the early 1900's and educated in the previous century they were still under the delusion that they lived in a republic.

...

Madison explicitly addressed

...

the issue of unlimited federal power emanating from the welfare clause.

Would you mind explaining where providing for the *general* welfare equates to unlimited powers?

I can't explain it to you because I don't believe it. I can tell you that that specific clause is what exploded the size and scope of federal power. It was specifically pointed to by the 1937 supreme court re the social (in)security decision. If you would like chapter and verse I can probably track it down. The supremes in 1937 used it and you used it in your email when you said that the general welfare clause was the the reason we had some sort of social contract. I can tell you that if you read the general welfare clause as meaning the feds have the power to do whatever the legislators and the executive believe is in our own best interests -- that opens them up to virtually unlimited powers. I'm sure Hitler, Mao and Stalin believed they were doing what was in the interests of the "general welfare" also. 91 million dead later you have your answer. Oops..I forgot about the Khmer Rouge.. make that 92 million. The problem with that kind of "general welfare" is that it is fundamentally incompatible with individual rights.

No government has unlimited powers and providing for the general welfare can't honestly be extrapolated to that conclusion.

Tell that to Hitler, Mao and Stalin. Tell that to the Japanese Americans that were interned in prison camps. Have we arrived at unlimited power yet, Jim? How about burning children alive in their own church without those responsible being punished? Have we arrived at unlimited power yet, Jim?

Within the context of the Constitution general welfare is in reference to building a framework for the expression of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As much as I love Jefferson's prose, that is a part of the declaration of independence and not the constitution. The DOI is a document of intent, the constitution is a document of law. The general welfare clause is almost meaningless. Like the DOI it specifies intent, but not a specific delegation of power. The delegation of powers, the seperation of those powers and reservation of individual human rights are what is the motive forces behind the constitution. If the general welfare clause were a law it would have to be found invalid for vagueness.

...

...

Had the supreme court bothered to read the founder's writings on this they would have found it in a week or two. That's assuming their conclusion was not already decided.

Found what? Whose conclusions, the founding fathers or the sitting supremes?

Read it again, Jim. "bothered to read the *founder's writings* on this"

...

...

The constitution is a document that enumerates the powers of the federal government. It is very specific.

And prohibits the enumeration of individual liberties by the same government. Rather handy little situation that, since it completely blows holes in any move to derive totalitarian control (which by the way is not democratic).

You seem to be confusing the concepts of "powers" and "rights". People have rights, institutions have powers. The constitution enumerates the specific *powers* of the federal government. However agenda motivated SC judges in 1937 seemed to ignore the 9th and 10th amendment to the constitution and extend the meaning of the "general welfare" clause to an extra-constitutional extent. They overrode the limited powers of the federal government.

As Madison stated, if the general

...

...

welfare clause meant what the socialist engineers wished it meant, there would have been no need to enumerate the specific powers of the federal government.

Well to be accurate there was no enumeration of the specific powers in the original Constitution, it's why Jefferson (who was in France at the time), Madison, and others fought and supported the Bill of Rights. Because of the 9th and 10th such moves are inherently doomed to failure.

Excuse me. There was no enumeration of the powers of the federal government in the original constitution? How exactly do you create a constitution without a mention of the various powers that branches of government are going to have? Not to mention that the arguments with respect to a bill of rights was not that the original constitution bestowed unlimited powers, but that since the constitution only bestowed limited powers that there was no need for a bill of rights. Jefferson was concerned that with no BOR people would not have a guidebook to know when the state was overstepping its mandated powers.

In fact, it would have been as if the founding fathers had

...

...

said:

"The federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it feels necessary."

"The powers of the federal government are as follows"

(1) (2) (3) etc

Which would be ridiculous on its face.

This entire section is ridiculous. To say on one hand the powers are unlimited and then to proceed to list them weakens the argument, this was also the reason for the 10th. It prevents such extrapolations as this.

I'm sorry it was so unclear to you. Let me reiterate. The 1937 Supreme Court stated that the general welfare clause was a grant of unlimited federal powers to impose "general welfare". You let me know what "general welfare" would limit them to. I was pointing out, as Madison stated, that to read the constitution this way would be to read it as if the constitution had just granted the federal government unlimited powers and then proceeded to enumerate the specific powers. As I pointed out and as appears above "this would be ridiculous on its face". You simply restated that and then proceeded to argue with me.

...

...

The reality of the situation is that Roosevelt kept trying to stack the Supreme Court.

Wow, I didn't realize Roosevelt was even alive to participate in the original Constitutional debates.

Since this was a dicussion of the nails in the coffin of the Republic and since that covers about 150 years it is necessary to cover that time span.

I'm going to stop here since we are obviously off on one of your pet peeves that isn't related to the discussion at hand. To jump 150 years in one fell swoop is pretty extraordinary. The reality is, as Jefferson himself said, that the laws of one generation aren't the laws of another.

Yes, the destruction of the constitution is a pet peeve of mine as it is for many people on the list. The reason I even brought it up is that you seemed to be misinformed on the extent of the powers of the federal government granted by the constitution. The whole "social contract" theory is bunk. The reality is that the laws of the previous generations certainly are the laws of succeeding generations. The entire body of English Common Law is based on this concept. The constitution is amendable, that is what Jefferson meant. By all means amend it if you are able, but don't pretend under color of law that the constitution means something other than what it says. Here is the point of this whole dicussion: (1) The constitution chains down the federal government in a prison of specific limited powers. (2) The general welfare clause is not an escape clause from that prison. (3) The general welfare clause is not a justification for transfer payments or other systems of theft. (4)The dismantling of the republic began with the civil war, was accelerated by the formation of the Federal Reserve and new taxation systems and eventually finalized by Roosevelt's stacking of the supreme court when Social (in)Security was challenged in 1937. The subsequent reading by the Supreme that the "general welfare" clause was a delegation of unlimited federal powers essentially destroyed the notion of limited federal power and began the vast bureaucratic machine that we know and love today. jim "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." -- Thos. Jefferson ". . . we are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." - Ayn Rand , The Nature of Government "In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." --Thomas Jefferson "No man can take another's property from him without his consent. This is the law of nature; and a violation of it is the same thing, whether it be done by one man who is called a king, or by five hundred of another denomination..." --Samuel Adams