General Welfare My A**

In these heady days of open acceptance of both fascism and socialism, pissing on the Constitution and Founding Fathers has become a habit so ingrained that nobody remembers to “zip up.”

On 3 March 1817 President James Madison, frequently dubbed “the Father of the Constitution”, vetoed a bill passed by Congress and issued the following statement. In it he thoroughly rejects the idea that the Constitution grants the Federal government broad powers to meddle in State affairs, even with the best intentions. Today people suppose that the so-called “commerce clause” and “general welfare” clause grant arbitrary power to the Federal government, but here Madison reminded Congress that its powers extended only as far as was specifically enumerated (i.e. listed in black and white in Article I, Section 8, Paragraphs 2–17), and “reading between the lines” was unconstitutional. Pay special attention to the fourth paragraph, after the introduction.

---

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled “An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,” and which sets apart and pledges funds “for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,” I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

“The power to regulate commerce among the several States” cannot include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce with a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.

To refer the power in question to the clause “to provide for common defense and general welfare” would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory* and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms “common defense and general welfare” embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared “that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.

A restriction of the power “to provide for the common defense and general welfare” to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.

If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill cannot confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

James Madison,
President of the United States

---

Emphasis ours.

*Point of vocabulary:
nugatory, n., of no force; inoperative; ineffectual.
Source: Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

STGM

Ron Paul: Constitutional Friend or Foe?

Ron Paul’s book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom was a terrible disappointment. My hope was that he actually took time to write a book on foreign policy, taking the opportunity to explain his philosophy in depth. While I did gain greater insight into Rep. Paul’s views, core questions remain silently unanswered.

The book itself is a collection primarily of speeches made on the House floor from 1976 through 2006. As such, it requires dedication to grind through the repetition while being on the lookout for a new drop of information. For those that do not wish to slog through the book, read the concluding 11-page Summary that starts on page 361. Otherwise one can read his articles on places like Lew Rockwell.

The one thing that I am left with is the distinct impression that where the words of the Constitution and Founders intersect with neocon/Zionist conspiracy views, he’s an ardent supporter. Where they don’t, he stays silent. He’s also consistent to cherry-pick or distort history to support his views.

This last bit bothers me a great deal, since the U.S. has engaged in extra-Constitutional activities in spades — so much so that I see no need to exaggerate or twist history to emphasize the rabid edge of his policies. This happens consistently in practically every speech, leading me to believe that Rep. Paul is not naïve as I had hoped, but is a genuine ideologue. Naïveté can be very dangerous as one has no foundation to resist being misled, but it can be remedied with good advisors. Standing in the boots of a hard-core ideologue presents a different danger, where reality takes a back seat to a vision incompatible with nature. We have had our share of presidents who drove the ship of state straight into known rocky shoals.

I have no reason at this point to believe that a President Ron Paul wouldn’t ground the ship of state as firmly as his predecessors in order to fulfill his vision.

The Constitution’s Enemy?

A few years ago I was driving through Utah. When traveling, I’ll tune into the local stations, which I’ve found interesting from time to time. If I remember correctly, the talk show host was Jim Sumpter, before he went national, and he had two guests from the Utah Constitution Party.

The discussion was progressing pleasantly, with both host and guest engaged in a fine discourse about principles of correct governance. At some point the fine gentlemen representing the Party started into some fringe beliefs. My memory fuzzes here, but it was along the lines of the Great Zionist Conspiracy. That detail is not relevant other than I could imagine a force traveling through the airwaves and causing people to hit another preset on the radio. I hung on.

To his great credit, in my view, Mr. Sumpter proceeded to chastise the gentlemen. They admitted that those ideas were not part of the Constitution Party, but (IIRC) were held by a good number of people with whom they associated through the Party. Mr. Sumpter’s point was that they were there on the radio to promote the Party, not their personal views on things that turn most people off — regardless of the truth or error in their views. Mr. Sumpter asserted that the unfortunate side effect would be that people who didn’t agree with those ideas would invariably associate the Constitution Party with “nut jobs”.

As I remember it, Mr. Sumpter stated that he was quite sympathetic to the things the Party professed, and thus was a little miffed that they would harm the reputation of the Party by their ideological detour. It’s fine to hold those beliefs, but when acting as representatives of the Party, it was quite inappropriate.

I don’t know what has happened to the Party since. I sincerely hope, for their own sakes, that members aren’t more concerned about the Great Zionist Conspiracy than the larger message they have in common with other people: personal liberty, republicanism, enumerated powers, etc.

The unfortunate effect was that it reinforced the negative image when people say words like “I’m a constitutionalist.” They think, “nut job”.

So it is with Ron Paul. He says many things which are correct which attracts large numbers of people. However, in remaining the Constant Critic, mercilessly hammering the United States, people tend to become numb to the message. People naturally turn a deaf ear as they say, “Here we go again”.

The result is that people are driven away from correct ideals by the very people who profess them.

Some Unanswered Questions

I’m a little disheartened that A Foreign Policy of Freedom answered no real questions.

My questions remain to date unanswered, and at this point I have grave doubts that they will. I’ll idly throw out a handful here, and appreciate insight others may give.

Example: Alliances

A favorite bit of rhetoric of Rep. Paul is the warning against “entangling alliances”. It appears that he believes that all alliances are “entangling”. Is that true, or are there “non-entangling” alliances? If so, what would they look like, how do they work, under what conditions, etc.?

Example: Power Vacuum

It’s my understanding that a President Ron Paul would push for pulling back our military from all countries everywhere ASAP, and if I read right, starting with Iraq.

Doing so rapidly would create a significant power vacuum, and I have read nothing that would suggest that Ron Paul has considered “blow back” (a favorite term of his) from his immediate withdrawal. What I have read so far suggests that our problems would disappear as people rejoice that the evil America has left town.

Example: True Enemies

If I am to believe what Rep. Paul suggests, the enemies the United States has are those that it made; victims of the evil America.

This denies both history and human nature, where there are people who wish you dead or enslaved not because you hurt them, but because they desire power over you.

• Are there those who resent the United States because of our actions? Certainly.
• If we pulled back would they be our friends? Big maybe.
• If we minded our own business, would we eventually never have another enemy? Dream on.

I’m not proposing a Hobbesian view of the world, where the natural state of Man is war. However, neither do I propose a Pollyanna paradigm where singing Kumbaya heals all hurts.

I have read small bits that suggest that Ron Paul has a wider perspective than Kumbaya, but they’re glancing comments in his earlier years. This would be an interesting discussion.

Example: The Empty Dollar

What plan does he propose for shifting the dollar to a hard currency, and how would he defend against large fiat currency stake-holders? Assuming that the political battle is won, what plan would there be for obtaining the gold to back the new dollar, and what would be done with the fiat currency during the interregnum? How would the value represented by the fiat dollar be protected (or would it) during the transition?

If we were successful in converting to a hard currency again, would there be a rush away from the fiat dollar, or would people hold the fiat dollar with skepticism given the U.S. government’s hostility towards hard currency over the last hundred years?

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera!

I could go on for hours.

We Need More Ron Pauls

The crying shame is that Ron Paul is the odd man out. Our selection of people who proclaim the Constitution (regardless of whether they’re nut jobs or not) consists of Ron Paul and whomever might come from the Constitution or Libertarian parties.

I hope that Ron Paul will inspire others to seek public office. Even if the majority of them were nut jobs, at least the Law of Averages would work in our favor, giving us somebody who both loves the ideas of the Founders and the Constitution and has the keen insight needed to apply these principles to the real world.

At this point I retain my reservations with regard to Ron Paul, but I hope he doesn’t throw in the towel until after the Republican Party has officially chosen a candidate.