It's Our Constitution -- Non Kavanaugh

by Dr. Walter E. Williams: One of the best statements of how the Framers saw the role of the federal authorities is constitute inwards Federalist Paper 45, written yesteryear James Madison, who is known every bit the “Father of the Constitution”: “The powers delegated yesteryear the proposed Constitution to the federal authorities are few too defined. Those which are to stay inwards the State governments are numerous too indefinite. The old volition last exercised principally on external objects, every bit war, peace, negotiation, too unusual commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States volition extend to all the objects which, inwards the ordinary course of instruction of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, too properties of the people.” Today’s reality is the polar opposite of that vision. The powers of the federal authorities are numerous too indefinite, too those of nation governments are few too defined.

If confirmed, Brett Kavanaugh volition convey to the U.S. Supreme Court a vision closer to that of the Framers than the vision of those who believe that the Constitution is a “living document.” Those Americans rallying against Kavanaugh’s confirmation are actually against the U.S. Constitution rather than the homo — Judge Kavanaugh — whom I believe would accept seriously his oath of constituent to uphold too defend the Constitution.

Was Madison misinformed or simply evidently ignorant close the powers delegated to Congress? Before nosotros answer, let’s examine statements of other perchance “misinformed” Americans.

In 1796, on the flooring of the House of Representatives, William Giles of Virginia condemned a relief stair out for burn victims, maxim the role too the correct of Congress is to attend to non what generosity too humanity quest but instead what their duty requires.

In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a mouth intended to aid the mentally ill, writing to the Senate, “I tin non observe whatever authorisation inwards the Constitution for making the Federal Government the dandy almoner of populace charity.” He added that to approve such spending would “be opposite to the missive of the alphabet too spirit of the Constitution too subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”

President Grover Cleveland out-vetoed his predecessors yesteryear vetoing 584 acts of Congress, including many congressional spending bills, during his 2 damage every bit president inwards the belatedly 1800s. His often-given veto message was, “I tin observe no warrant for such an appropriation inwards the Constitution.” By the way, President Cleveland was a Democrat.

Were the Founding Fathers, previous congressmen too previous presidents who could non observe constitutional authorisation for today’s massive federal authorities intervention simply evidently stupid, ignorant, callous too 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 come across whether an Article five amendment had been enacted authorizing Congress to pass coin for work organisation bailouts, prescription drugs, education, Social Security too thousands of other spending measures inwards today’s federal budget. I constitute no such amendment. Contrary to what our Constitution permits, Congress taxes too spends for anything upon which it tin muster a bulk vote.

But I constitute a constitutional loophole that many congressmen utilisation every bit a blank check, every bit good every bit justification to command most aspects of our lives — namely, the full general welfare clause. The Constitution’s preamble contains the phrase “promote the full general Welfare,” too Article 1, Section 8 contains the phrase “provide for the mutual Defence too full general Welfare of the United States.”

What did the Framers hateful yesteryear “general Welfare”? In 1817, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Congress had non unlimited powers to furnish for the full general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated.” Madison wrote: “With abide by to the words ‘general welfare,’ I cause got ever regarded them every bit qualified yesteryear the exceptional of powers connected amongst them. To accept them inwards a literal too unlimited feel would last a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a grapheme which at that spot is a host of proofs was non contemplated yesteryear its creators.”

Case closed: It’s our Constitution that’s the work for leftist interventionists — non Brett Kavanaugh.
--------------
Walter Williams (@WE_Williams) is an American economist, social commentator, too writer of over 150 publications. He has a Ph.D. too M.A. inwards Economics from the UCLA too B.A. inwards economic science from California State University. He too holds a Doctor of Humane Letters from Virginia Union University too Grove City College, Doctor of Laws from Washington too Jefferson College. He has served on the faculty of George Mason University inwards Fairfax, Virginia, every bit John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics, since 1980. Visit his website: WalterEWilliams.com too thought a listing of other articles too works.

---

Tags: Walter Williams, commentary, It's Our Constitution, Not Kavanaugh To portion or shipping service to your site, click on "Post Link". Please cite / link to the too "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Sumber https://arkansasgopwing.blogspot.com/