Nothing To See Here

I'm posting this only because I wrote it, and spent a bit of time on it... so my hardcore, adoring, fans can bask in the glory that is Teh Pwning of Teh Loon.

Me;

I still find it terribly amusing that you'll only approve comments from what you consider "idiots", and delete off substantive arguments that you simply can't deal with. It's much easier to just approve a comment that looks obviously "idiotic" to you, isn't it? Your post was so ambiguous as to be nearly useless, but I took it to mean you oppose every federal "entitlement" program, and jurisdiction in monetary policy. Michael apparently read it differently.

You have a maddening habit of not being clear nor concise in explaining your point. You rail at everyone else's supposed inability to understand, or accuse people of twisting your meaning, and never stop to realize that you need to read your post from the point of view of somebody who is not you, and ask yourself if it makes any sense.

Read your post again. Nowhere in it do you specify which government programs or acts you think are unconstitutional. Not a single one.. none.. zip.. nadda... and to me that means every single program in principle. Michael took it to mean taxation in general. That's your fault. You call him a "moron" and then explain that it's the "redistribution of wealth" that you're talking about. Do you have any concept of how vague that is to a normal person? What does that mean? Which government programs? Which authority of the government are you opposed to?

The "Bonus Bill" that Madison vetoed actually passed Congress with the argument that it was Constitutional, based on the "general welfare" clause, which defines the role of Congress... It was simply about building roads. Madison didn't buy that argument, and it was a valid argument for Madison to have made. That was certainly within his authority, but the President is NOT the final arbiter of what is Constitutional and what is not. That is the responsibility of the 3rd co-equal branch of the Federal government, i.e., the Supreme Court.

Isn't it ironic that Dwight Eisenhower, Republican President, Army General, and hero of World War II, signed the Interstate Highway System into law? It was, and still is, the largest public works program in the world. It cost $425 billion in adjusted dollars to complete. It is a monumental success.

Did Eisenhower "steal" money to pay for it? Was it unconstitutional? Was Eisenhower a "Socialist"? I'd imagine many of the roads you drive on in your job were built by the Federal Government.. and it put a lot of people to work, and ushered in the huge benefits of transportation. That's what's known as promoting the general welfare of the country.

Did you know that the Federal Government built the Hoover dam? Was that unconstitutional? It cost $736 million in adjusted dollars to build. Was the money "stolen" from tax payers? The list of public works that were paid for by the fed is endless, and Madison would have vetoed them all.

In terms of the New Deal, the arbiters of the US Constitution (the Supreme Court) ruled in Steward Machine Company v. Davis,
"[It] is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare".

Many parts of the New Deal have since been dismantled, and that's how it works in a Democracy. Elected Representatives composed and approved the new legislation that the President signed. You realize, I'm sure, that Congress could repeal Social Security today by passing a law and having the President sign it. That's not going to happen because it's a succesful program and Americans really like it. It promotes the general welfare of the nation.

Which New Deal programs do you have a problem with? Can you name one?

Is your issue with the Federal Reserve Act, and the Fed's effect and authority in monetary policy?

It's also rather ironic that James Madison vetoed 5 total bills from Congress during his Presidency, 2 of which were requests by religious organizations. He vetoed them on grounds that they violated the Establishment Clause. Heh

Now.. there is absolutely no way that you will not delete this.

Doug (in a giant wall of test);

For once a very good argument from you, with a minimum (though they are still there in the beginning) of personal attacks. Establishing roads for postal routes is constitutional, so it could very well be said that the establishment of the Interstate system was constitutional because they were necessary to move the post - but the maintenance is the state's responsibility once the roads are established. As for Madison, he was the architect of the U.S. Constitution, don't you think he may know a thing or two about it? I don't believe that "all" programs are unconstitutional, and at this point to go over each and every one that should be eliminated would be too monumental of a task considering my current schedule, but trust me, it is an endeavor I have in mind to undertake. As for the Establishment Clause, I agree that NO religion should be established as a state religion, that is the point of the clause - but that does not mean taking away the right of the citizen to exhibit his or her religion in the public square, or the right for my child to decide to bow their head before their meal in the cafeteria, or for me to carry a Bible into Jury Duty so that I can study it while I wait. That is ridiculous. And you, my friend, don't understand the criteria - I get 20 to 30 comments from liberals that spout insanity and profanity every post - hateful stuff - and more often than not I must delete them - on occasion, however, there are a few that catch my attention, and I address them. You usually include personal attacks (such as a comment about my wife a week or so back) and that is not acceptable. Present your argument without snide remarks about me and my family, or without ridiculous assumptions about my positions, and your comments may be approved. . . Note: I don't go to liberal sites to comment in the way you guys do - but that doesn't mean I never read the opposition. I just don't believe it is right to attack other sites like that.

And me again;

Fair enough, but I think you sometimes confuse sarcasm with a "personal attack", and you over-state the attack thing from me, but whatever. Approve what you want, or don't want (obviously), but I think you just don't want to deal with me nitpicking your every argument, like I'm doing with this one, and which I have fun doing. You are certainly free to comment on my blog, and you have in the past, and I actually like it because arguing is how opinions are formed. That you don't choose to do so now is irrelevant, but details matter. Referencing the real information, instead of paraphrasing everything, is important. And you just can't expect to continually post that way without incurring some response. If some people are jerks about it, that's an issue with those individuals, and it goes with the territory in the wild jungle of the Internet. I have one nutzoid spamming my blog and threatening me as well, but I don't wear it as a badge of honor, nor claim that he represents typical Conservatives.

Read what you said about Michael, and read what I said about you in the first paragraph of my previous comment. That's the difference between an "attack" and an opinion that is followed up with a substantive argument.

The Interstate Highway System law passed in 1956. I'm pretty sure that the post was delivered with regularity prior to that, and Eisenhower made no reference to mail. It is comprised of 46,837 miles of road. Your claim that "maintenance is the state's responsibility once the roads are established" is not true. To this day, the Fed pays 90% of the maintenance costs of the roads, and the Fed establishes all of the regulations related to the roads via the American Association of State Highway and Transportation. An exception to that would be speed limits, which individual states set, however the Fed sets the maximum national speed limits.

In fact, Madison approved of the idea of federal road building, and suggested amending the Constitution to state such when he issued his veto of the "Bonus Bill". At the Constitutional Convention (where the Constitution was crafted) Madison wanted the building of roads, and other pubic works, specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Others (particularly Alexander Hamilton) disagreed as it would too granular and limiting of Congress to list each and every possible spending program in the Constitution. Madison lost that debate and the words in the first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "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." Article I, Section 9, limits the powers of Congress and says nothing about spending, except that it can only be done through passage of law.

Alexander Hamilton held the opposite view of Madison. He maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. Who was right? Constitutionally, that was the responsibility of the Supreme Court to decide, and they did, in the United States v. Butler. They sided with Hamilton.

Clearly, different opinions are valid and clearly there are legal avenues to pursue differing ideas. That's why our Constitution is so awesome, and it is designed to reflect the changing needs of the country. Congress can pass a new law that the President can sign. The Constitutional issues of the law can be reviewed by the Judiciary, which gives much deference to precedence, but may make fine distinctions in interpretation such as that of Madison vs. Hamilton. That is why elections matter.

My problem with your post was that it was factually wrong, and lacked substantiation of your point. You then referenced Madison's "Bonus Bill" veto without context and simply declared much Federal authority as "unconstitutional" without any evidence, and in the face reality as it exists today.

That's why it was important to specify what Madison's veto meant, and contrast that to the Interstate Highway System, which is the complete opposite of Madison's view of Congress. They are polar opposites, and if you agree with Madison, then you must agree that the Interstate Highway System is unconstitutional. The road building that Madison vetoed is exactly the same as the road building that Eisenhower did, and that's the whole point of what the Federal government is doing today. The entire history of the United States government has laid the groundwork of what Congress and Obama will be doing today. The battle was already fought. Hamilton won.

You can't have it both ways. Is the Interstate Highway System a good thing? Is it a huge asset to the "general welfare" of the nation, or was it unconstitutional? If you think it was/is an asset, and I'm sure you do since you use it a lot, then you must agree that other spending acts of Congress done in the interest of the "general welfare" are also Constitutional. You may disagree with the policy, and that's fine. That's what elections are for! You get your representatives elected to Congress that reflect your view, and voila.. their actions or inaction reflect such. You get your candidate elected President, and you get judges that reflect your views.

The reason why I keep asking you about the New Deal is because you keep slamming it in vague terms like you did in this post. It's been going on for years now. Here you are again bemoaning the monumental task of actually making your point in a substantive way because the New Deal programs are so expansive and would take a long time to argue. I guess it's easier to draw an analogy to a thief robbing you.

Here is a list of the New Deal programs that are still active;

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the Social Security System, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Fannie Mae. President Johnson signed Medicare into law as an amendment to Social Security in 1965, but it is not technically a New Deal program.

That's pretty straight forward in my view. I can tell you what I think about those programs in about 30 minutes worth of writing, and make an effective argument that none of it is "Socialist", but rather in effective keeping with Hamilton's view of the Constitution and in the best interest of our nation.

* note that I am not a lawyer, nor particularly interested in Constitutional law. I can, however, research and read..

/update

Fuck me.. I made a freudian slip.. or was it intentional? I'll never say..