It's Our Constitution – Not Kavanaugh

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
One of the best statements of how the Framers saw the role of the federal government is found in Federalist Paper 45, written by James Madison, who is known as the "Father of the Constitution": "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people." Today's reality is the polar opposite of that vision. The powers of the federal government are numerous and indefinite, and those of state governments are few and defined.

Was Madison misinformed or just plain ignorant about the powers delegated to Congress? Before we answer, let's examine statements of other possibly "misinformed" Americans. In 1796, on the floor of the House of Representatives, William Giles of Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims, saying the purpose and the right of Congress is to attend to not what generosity and humanity require but instead what their duty requires. In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill intended to help the mentally ill, writing to the Senate, "I can not find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity." He added that to approve such spending would "be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." President Grover Cleveland out-vetoed his predecessors by vetoing 584 acts of Congress, including many congressional spending bills, during his two terms as president in the late 1800s. His often-given veto message was, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." By the way, President Cleveland was a Democrat.

Were the Founding Fathers, previous congressmen and previous presidents who could not find constitutional authority for today's massive federal government intervention just plain stupid, ignorant, callous and uncaring? Article 1 of the Constitution defines the role of Congress. Its Section 8 lists powers delegated to Congress. I examined our Constitution, looking to see whether an Article 5 amendment had been enacted authorizing Congress to spend money for business bailouts, prescription drugs, education, Social Security and thousands of other spending measures in today's federal budget. I found no such amendment. Contrary to what our Constitution permits, Congress taxes and spends for anything upon which it can muster a majority vote.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/35903/williams-its-our-constitution-–-not-kavanaugh-walter-e-williams
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Were the Founding Fathers, previous congressmen and previous presidents who could not find constitutional authority for today's massive federal government intervention just plain stupid, ignorant, callous and uncaring?

These two highlighted seem to be the carrion call of the left - if you don't vote for government to do these things, you don't care.

THAT is just plain stupid and ignorant.

It has nothing to do with caring. It has everything to do with usurping authority.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
It has nothing to do with caring. It has everything to do with usurping authority.

It is not the concern or job of a government to "care". Nor do I believe it ever does.
Governments do not have "friends". They have allies.
They conduct wars and execute criminals - they do not have morals, for they have no soul.
It's important not to anthropomorphize them as such.
It makes a nice selling point, but it's never going to be true.

We, as a people, have these. Hence, it is up to our society to care - to befriend - to help.
If you let the government be your proxy for charity or morality - it's YOU who doesn't care.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
It is not the concern or job of a government to "care". Nor do I believe it ever does.
Governments do not have "friends". They have allies.
They conduct wars and execute criminals - they do not have morals, for they have no soul.
It's important not to anthropomorphize them as such.
It makes a nice selling point, but it's never going to be true.

We, as a people, have these. Hence, it is up to our society to care - to befriend - to help.
If you let the government be your proxy for charity or morality - it's YOU who doesn't care.

Brilliant! I'm going to keep this.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
It is not the concern or job of a government to "care". Nor do I believe it ever does.
Governments do not have "friends". They have allies.
They conduct wars and execute criminals - they do not have morals, for they have no soul.
It's important not to anthropomorphize them as such.
It makes a nice selling point, but it's never going to be true.

We, as a people, have these. Hence, it is up to our society to care - to befriend - to help.
If you let the government be your proxy for charity or morality - it's YOU who doesn't care.

Well said :dingding:
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
It is not the concern or job of a government to "care". Nor do I believe it ever does.
Governments do not have "friends". They have allies.
They conduct wars and execute criminals - they do not have morals, for they have no soul.
It's important not to anthropomorphize them as such.
It makes a nice selling point, but it's never going to be true.

We, as a people, have these. Hence, it is up to our society to care - to befriend - to help.
If you let the government be your proxy for charity or morality - it's YOU who doesn't care.

:yay: Perfect.
 
Top