Exploiting Public Ignorance

[Felix The Assassin]

By Walter E. Williams

How can political commentators, politicians and academics get away with statements like "Reagan budget deficits," "Clinton budget surplus," "Bush budget deficits" or "Obama's tax increases"? The only answer is that they, or the people who believe such statements, are ignorant, conniving or just plain stupid. Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution reads: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills." A president has no power to raise or lower taxes. He can propose tax measures or veto them but since Congress can ignore presidential proposals and override a presidential veto, it has the ultimate taxing power. The same principle applies to spending. A president cannot spend a dime that Congress does not first appropriate. As such, presidents cannot be held responsible for budget deficits or surpluses. That means that credit for a budget surplus or blame for budget deficits rests on the congressional majority at the time.

Thinking about today's massive deficits, we might ask: Where in the U.S. Constitution is Congress given the authority to do anything about the economy? Between 1787 and 1930, we have had both mild and severe economic downturns that have ranged from one to seven years. During that time there was no thought that Congress should enact New Deal legislation or stimulus packages along with massive corporate handouts. It took the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations to massively intervene in the economy. As a result, they turned what might have been a two or three-year sharp downturn into a 16-year depression that ended in 1946. How they accomplished that is covered very well in a book authored by Jim Powell titled "FDR's Folly." Here's my question: Were the presidents in office and congresses assembled from 1787 to 1930 ignorant of their constitutional authority to manage and save the economy?

If you asked President Obama or a congressman to cite the specific constitutional authority for the bailouts, handouts and corporate takeover, I'd bet the rent money that they would say that their authority lies in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that reads: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Impost, Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." They'd tell you that their authority comes from the Constitution's "general welfare" clause. James Madison, the father of our constitution, explained, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions." He later added, "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." Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." That means only those powers listed.

The Constitution provides, through Article V, a means by which the Constitution can be altered. My question to my fellow Americans whether they are liberal or conservative: Has the Constitution been amended to permit Congress to manage the economy? I'd also ask that question to members of the U.S. Supreme Court. I personally know of no such amendment. What we're witnessing today is nothing less than a massive escalation in White House and congressional thuggery. Secure in the knowledge that the American people are compliant and willing to cast off the limitations imposed on Washington by the nation's founders, future administrations are probably going to be even more emboldened than Obama and the current Congress.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

http://www.patriotpost.us/opinion/wa...ignorance.html

[wellard]

So the alternate would be to leave the economic management of the USofA as a whole down to individual states? An idea so stupid he understandably fails to mention that as the obvious consequence of his train of thought. So James Maddison expressed an opinion has to the definition of 'general welfare' well woppee doo ... opinions, like mine, are like assholes, everyone has them. What matters is actually what is written and the consensus of legal opinion on what those words mean.

"to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States" has been defined and clarified thousands of times over the years. The author of that piece of pedantic poppycock really needs to get a grip of reality. I presume he is already filing writs to the high court to overturn the powers accumulated and defined over time? or is he just all piss and wind?

[VulcanRider]

James Madison, one of the USA's founding fathers, died a couple hundred years ago. He's too busy rotting to file writs...

[wellard]

Originally Posted by VulcanRider James Madison, one of the USA's founding fathers, died a couple hundred years ago. He's too busy rotting to file writs...

I'm well aware who Madison was, I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the author of the diatribe :p

[VulcanRider]

I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the author

Sorry, that's what happens when I start posting before coffee...

So James Maddison expressed an opinion has to the definition of 'general welfare' well woppee doo ... opinions, like mine, are like assholes, everyone has them. What matters is actually what is written and the consensus of legal opinion on what those words mean.

But don't you think the opinion of one of the men who helped write the document in the first place carries a *little* more weight as to what that document means?

As you pointed out, the "provide for the general welfare" clause keeps getting "clarified" -- unfortunately, the people doing the clarifying seem to be figuring out new ways to increase government authority far beyond what the original authors intended. It's been going on for w-a-y too long for any one person to beat it in court.

Maybe something like the new Montana Firearms Freedom Act will be a tiny starting point in pushing back. The Montana state government passed legislation in April 09 stating that firearms, ammunition, & accessories manufactured within the state, sold within the state, used within the state, and never taken out of the state, are not subject to federal regulation because the federal gun laws are based on the "interstate commerce" clause, but there hasn't been any interstate commerce.

[wellard]

Originally Posted by VulcanRider Sorry, that's what happens when I start posting before coffee...

No worries mate

Originally Posted by VulcanRider But don't you think the opinion of one of the men who helped write the document in the first place carries a *little* more weight as to what that document means?

Very much so, but you can not turn back time and for right or wrong what you have now has been honed and polished by people elected to govern.

Originally Posted by VulcanRider As you pointed out, the "provide for the general welfare" clause keeps getting "clarified" -- unfortunately, the people doing the clarifying seem to be figuring out new ways to increase government authority far beyond what the original authors intended. It's been going on for w-a-y too long for any one person to beat it in court.

And long may be that so in this case

[Chewbacca]

Definitely some exploitation going on, and not just of the ignorant. I'm sure to point out the thugs in government that really did rip us off like that Jefferson dude in LA, Lobbiest/Briber jack Abramoff, or that Jackass Illinois Gov. ect. We have a laundry list of thugs in the last decade, a whole rotten list. I'm not gonna hide behind some idealistic and imagined treatment of what the constitutuion and the ghost of Madison project, mostly disdain upon the great Nation. Crap.