The people who wrote it have written pretty clearly on what it meant. And the minutes of the convention help flesh this out as well. The Constitution was sold in the ratifying convention to the states as a total lockdown on the federal government. There is no possible way the states would have signed on to the idea of a federal government with the kind of arbitrary and virtually limitless power people like Nancy Pelosi would have you believe is there.
The people who wrote it and their contemporaries were almost immediately in dispute over what it meant. And here we are, over two centuries later.
No you didn’t.
Would you care to offer some examples of this, preferably specific to this particular clause?
Well sure I did. I even provided you the link for it. Easy click access.
There’s an example in the link I provided - which is from the same Wikipedia article that you previously linked to.
You did not address the possibility of the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution contrary to James Madison. I think that possibility is quite likely, given the Supreme Court’s history (especially it’s recent history).
Well, I realize you used the broad term “from the start”, but I think it says a lot that Hamilton only brings up this interpretation after the states have signed on. Makes one wonder why a power-hungry statist like that would allow the states to ratify a document under the impression it meant the government was extremely limited, and then once the ink dried (or maybe even before) he’s saying how they basically signed their slave contract, doesn’t it.
The entire basis for the post was that notion of “‘provide general welfare’ means whatever I’m advocating”. Read the first 6 paragraphs.
I would take it to mean that Hamilton and his ilk already saw loopholes in the Constitution’s limitations. As far as history goes, they were more right than they could have ever dreamed.
I did before I ever posted in this thread. What James Madison took “provide general welfare” to mean has no necessary bearing on what today’s Supreme Court justices take it to mean.
You mean they felt like they could get around it.
-
You sure about that?
-
What does that have to do with what we’re talking about? You essentially said I didn’t address the non-Madison understanding of the clause. I pointed out that that (mis)understanding formed the basis for the entire post.
No, I mean they already saw loopholes in the Constitution’s limitations.
Yes.
No, I didn’t say that, essentially or otherwise. I said that you didn’t address the possibility of today’s Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution contrary to James Madison’s interpretation.
I don’t think it’s really worth arguing about how the Justices will have arrived at their decisions until after the judgement is released. At that point the majority, concurring and dissenting opinions will be available for public view and we will be able to see their respective lines of reasoning.
“They felt like they could get around it [by pretending it meant something other than what it said, and what the people who ratified it understood it to mean]”
Would you care to offer your proof that the writings of Madison have no bearing on what Justices of today might reason/rule? They’ve all told you perosnally Madison has absolutely no influence (directly or indirectly) on their understanding of the document?
I addressed the two most popular “interpretations” and said 'here is what some people say, and here is what the document says and here is what the ‘Father of the Constitution’ said". It sounds like you’re arguing that because the words “A Supreme Court Justice might take one of these stances” weren’t included somewhere in the post, the notion that that is a possibility was completely absent.
Obviously if the notions exist, it’s possible that a Justice might take one of those stances. Just because I didn’t mention the fact that one of the Justices might shoot himself in the face before he cast his vote, it doesn’t mean that’s not a possibility either.
Just admit you didn’t fully read my post and came in with your trite platitude and are now trying to save face by clinging to a semantic technicality.
I don’t see how that’s equivalent to what I said.
I said that Madison’s interpretation of the Constitution has no necessary bearing on how today’s Supreme Court justices interpret it. Logically speaking, there’s no necessary connection there. How one person interprets something has no necessary bearing on how another person interprets it.
What I got from your post is that there’s only one correct way to interpret the Constitution. I categorically disagree with that.
I see nothing to admit there, because that isn’t the case. I did read your post fully before I posted. And as far as I’m concerned, what I posted isn’t a trite platitude and I’m not trying to save face in any way whatsoever. No amount of personal attacks by you will make me think otherwise.
That’s too bad.
Oooooooo.
Oh yeah. I forgot who I was talking to.
Whatever you say, chief.
But they will intimidate you, right? Or was it “won’t” intimidate you? I forget.
You must love bickering with Autolykos, because the quickest way to make him go away is to actually engage him in a discussion. Now you guys are just gonna go back and forth over nothing…
PS I don’t really mean “go away”, Autolykos!
.. Then what did you mean?
I meant end the discussion, but I was trying to empathize with JJ, or is it sympathize? I can never remember which is which.
Lotta love in this forum.
Dude, you are awesome! It’s all so simple, isn’t it? Everyone wants money and power and freedom, etc. But relatively few understand how all of that money and power were created here in America. So they literally seek to kill the goose (the constitution) that laid the golden eggs. Just freedom; that’s the answer, the solution to all of our problems.
Right, so where was I?
So in other words, you’re apparently not concerned with actually helping me to understand how those two statements must be equivalent. What are you concerned with here, John?
That’s right.
As if that’s going to shut me up. I would think you’d know better by now.
Perhaps you’d like to explain how definitions aren’t (ever?) arbitrary.
My opinion has not changed. Again, it doesn’t seem to me like you’re concerned with changing my opinion. So what are you concerned with?
Sure you do.
To actually answer your question, Friedmanite: Yes, policy 2 is constitutional and would probably never even reach the Supreme Court. The federal government does have the authority to levy a health care tax and offer refunds for those who buy an insurance policy. The problem is that doing so means admitting that it’s a tax, which would not get enough votes in Congress. Instead, the administration is trying to get the same result via the commerce clause, allowing them to claim they have not raised taxes. But just because it accomplishes the same end does not make the means constitutional.
That’s not going to intimidate me.
Did you seriously just ask me the same question in the same post…before I would have a chance to answer?
I’m not intimidated.
