Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Benjamin Cardozo and Harlan Stone did not draft, write or sign the Constitution because they weren't born until the nineteenth century. How could their opinions of the Founder's intent be any more relevant than those who twist the meaning of it today?
Well, under the Constitution, the opinions of Justices Cardoza and Stone writing for the majority hold greater constitutional weight than the opinion of the individual Founders(sic).
PS you are aware that Jefferson neither drafted, wrote nor signed the Constitution and was in point of fact in France at the time of its construction?
Quote:
"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 in letter to James Robertson
This quotation from the 1831 letter to James Robertson is a goodly bit of revisionist history on Madison's part since his original proposals were far less constrained regarding the powers of the Federal government. But be that as it may, Madison was but one of 55 delegate who drafted the Constitution. the point being, as I have already addressed there has been disagreement over the meaning of aspects of the Constitution since pen hit parchment.
Exhibit A.
Alexander Hamilton: Report on Manufactures 1791
"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.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money."
Based upon these two conflicting views on the part of two Framers of the Constitution regarding the portent of the Constitution, who is Constitutionally charged with resolving the conflict? None other than the Supreme Court and its Justices i.e., Benjamin Cardoza and Harlan Stone writing for the majorities.
To me one of the great problems with deciphering the Constitution, and it is a problem of deciphering is that it is a political document borne out of compromise, haste, and at time glaring inattention to detail. It wasn't a transcription of god's law but the product of men with conflicting agendas who as today, allowed the passage of one phrase out of greater concern for more pressing issues. As Richard Beeman points out in Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution the general welfare clause was passed with little to no debate because the delegates were more concerned about the proposal for establishing the role of the president (page 299). The fact that the general welfare clause would become a point of major contention was not foreseen by any of the delegates. But like many other aspects of the Constitution it has and I suppose will continue to be for some time in the future.
Well, under the Constitution, the opinions of Justices Cardoza and Stone writing for the majority hold greater constitutional weight than the opinion of the individual Founders(sic).
PS you are aware that Jefferson neither drafted, wrote nor signed the Constitution and was in point of fact in France at the time of its construction?
This quotation from the 1831 letter to James Robertson is a goodly bit of revisionist history on Madison's part since his original proposals were far less constrained regarding the powers of the Federal government. But be that as it may, Madison was but one of 55 delegate who drafted the Constitution. the point being, as I have already addressed there has been disagreement over the meaning of aspects of the Constitution since pen hit parchment.
Exhibit A.
Alexander Hamilton: Report on Manufactures 1791
"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.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money."
Based upon these two conflicting views on the part of two Framers of the Constitution regarding the portent of the Constitution, who is Constitutionally charged with resolving the conflict? None other than the Supreme Court and its Justices i.e., Benjamin Cardoza and Harlan Stone writing for the majorities.
To me one of the great problems with deciphering the Constitution, and it is a problem of deciphering is that it is a political document borne out of compromise, haste, and at time glaring inattention to detail. It wasn't a transcription of god's law but the product of men with conflicting agendas who as today, allowed the passage of one phrase out of greater concern for more pressing issues. As Richard Beeman points out in Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution the general welfare clause was passed with little to no debate because the delegates were more concerned about the proposal for establishing the role of the president (page 299). The fact that the general welfare clause would become a point of major contention was not foreseen by any of the delegates. But like many other aspects of the Constitution it has and I suppose will continue to be for some time in the future.
Great post. The general welfare statement has been the most abused and purposely misconstrued language in the constitution ... the veritable wild card for federal abuse of powers ... powers never granted nor intended to be granted.
And it is the scoundrels and the cheats who would "innocently" cite the general welfare language as supporting the multitude of power grabs. The very structure of the constitution, and how the federal powers were specifically enumerated, while reserving all other powers to the states and to the people clearly identifies the intent of the framers to strictly limit federal powers.
The very idea that the constitution would provide an open door for federal power grabs under the auspices of the general welfare language is a blatant fraud.
But, that is what the federal government and the courts have become ... one gigantic fraud.
"What's good for M&M Enterprises is good for your country." Milo Minderbinder
"Charles E. Wilson, who said "What is good for the country is good for General Motors, and what's good for General Motors is good for the country" during a hearing of a Senate subcommittee in 1952."
Well, under the Constitution, the opinions of Justices Cardoza and Stone writing for the majority hold greater constitutional weight than the opinion of the individual Founders(sic).
PS you are aware that Jefferson neither drafted, wrote nor signed the Constitution and was in point of fact in France at the time of its construction?
This quotation from the 1831 letter to James Robertson is a goodly bit of revisionist history on Madison's part since his original proposals were far less constrained regarding the powers of the Federal government. But be that as it may, Madison was but one of 55 delegate who drafted the Constitution. the point being, as I have already addressed there has been disagreement over the meaning of aspects of the Constitution since pen hit parchment.
Exhibit A.
Alexander Hamilton: Report on Manufactures 1791
"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.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money."
Based upon these two conflicting views on the part of two Framers of the Constitution regarding the portent of the Constitution, who is Constitutionally charged with resolving the conflict? None other than the Supreme Court and its Justices i.e., Benjamin Cardoza and Harlan Stone writing for the majorities.
To me one of the great problems with deciphering the Constitution, and it is a problem of deciphering is that it is a political document borne out of compromise, haste, and at time glaring inattention to detail. It wasn't a transcription of god's law but the product of men with conflicting agendas who as today, allowed the passage of one phrase out of greater concern for more pressing issues. As Richard Beeman points out in Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution the general welfare clause was passed with little to no debate because the delegates were more concerned about the proposal for establishing the role of the president (page 299). The fact that the general welfare clause would become a point of major contention was not foreseen by any of the delegates. But like many other aspects of the Constitution it has and I suppose will continue to be for some time in the future.
You are aware that Alexander Hamiltonneither drafted, wrote nor signed the Constitution? Hamilton left the Constitutional Convention in a huff by the end of June in 1787, and took the New York Delegation with him, after his proposed "constitutional monarchy" insanity was laughed out of the convention. Aaron Burr did the United States a great service by shooting Hamilton.
You are aware that Alexander Hamiltonneither drafted, wrote nor signed the Constitution? Hamilton left the Constitutional Convention in a huff by the end of June in 1787, and took the New York Delegation with him, after his proposed "constitutional monarchy" insanity was laughed out of the convention. Aaron Burr did the United States a great service by shooting Hamilton.
I don't know what Mr. Catto knows or doesn't know, but if I may interject:
The short rebuttal:
"Hamilton, neither drafted, wrote nor signed the Constitution?"
Since the Constitution was drafted by the Committee of the Whole over a period longer than his August absence, I suppose you are technically correct, as for writing the Constitution, Hamilton was elected to the Committee of Style which actually did write the Constitution. On your last point, you could not be more fundamentally incorrect as anyone who has ever looked at the original Constitution will attest because the document clearly is affixed with Hamilton's signature.
For those interested in more detail:
Hamilton did indeed leave on the 30th of June to return to New York in part because of the poor reception of his June 18th speech which he had hoped would break the deadlock over the New Jersey and Virginia plans, and the fact that the remainder of the New York delegation was principally opposed to the Convention and had withdrawn from further participation because the Convention had exceeded its stated authority, modifying the Articles of Confederation, not the whole cloth establishment of a new form of government. As a result, Hamilton's further participation was pointless being outvoted 2 to 1 when a majority state vote was required and absent to votes, Mr. Hamilton did not have a quorum for the New York delegation.
As for being "laughed out" of the convention" since there is no historical record of such an occurrence we will have to rely on an eyewitness like William Samuel Johnson the delegate from Connecticut who wrote: "The Gentleman from New York had been praised by every body but supported by none."
Also, it must be pointed out that Hamilton's absence during the month of August was temporary as was the attendance of many of the delegates who from time to time absented themselves from the proceedings and despite the withdrawal of his fellow delegates, Hamilton returned in September when he was elected to the Committee of Style that put the finishing touches on the draft constitution and went on to be one of the Constitutions strongest advocates through his co-authorship of the Federalist Papers.
One point about Hamilton's signature that is significant. Hamilton did not in fact have the right to sign the Constitution because of the New York delegations withdrawal but he did so, even in light of his own personal objections, to demonstrate as he put it:
"A few characters of consequence by opposing or even refusing to sign the constitution. might do infinite mischief by kindling the latent sparks which lurk under an enthusiasm in favor of he Convention which many soon subside. No man's ideas are more remote to deliberation between anarchy and convulsion on one side and the chance of good to be expected from the plan on the other. "
One last point regarding the uniformity of belief amongst the delegates of the Convention a total of 16 would not sign the document as written to argue that the remain 39 had reached an absolute consensus over its every meaning is to beg the question as we have noted that Hamilton held wide objections to it nor was he alone:
Those who chose not to sign the Constitution.
William Richardson Davie; NC
Oliver Ellsworth; CT
Elbridge Gerry; MA
William Houstoun, GA
William Churchill Houstoun, NJ
John Lansing,; NY
James McClurg; VA
Alexander Martin; NC
Luther Martin; MD
George Mason; VA
John Francis Mercer: MD
William Pierce; GA
Edmund Jennings Randolph: VA
Caleb Strong; MA
George Wythe; VA
Robert Yates; NY
I never astounds me how actual discussions about the history of the Constitution always seem to die an early death amongst so many who claim to hold the Constitution so dear.
Winter thanks for taking up my light work in my absence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
