Well, the "corporate personhood" issue is a problem stemming from an interpretation of the 14th Amendment. I don't agree with corporate personhood, nor much else in the 14th Amendment. That's a whole subject unto itself.
As for the "General Welfare Clause", that is a big example of a problem stemming from abuse.
The quote from the Preamble is not in the enumerated powers section, and holds no force of law, but it is repeated in Article One of the enumerated powers sectiion.
For information on intent of that General Welfare Clause, we have some statements by the founders:
In a letter, regarding the question of the General Welfare Clause, Madison responds,
"If not only the means, but the objects are unlimited, the parchment had better be thrown into the fire at once.”
In Federalist Paper #41, Madison writes:
"It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction."
Madison in a letter to James Robertson,
“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.”
Jefferson wrote in 1791,
“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed”
There are plenty of others.
Basically, there is no latitude authorized to go "willy nilly" about, authorizing every convenient issue under the General Welfare Clause.
However, this all changed under FDR and the "New Deal". otherwise called by me, "The Raw Deal".
FDR called for "special powers" in the Farm Bill of 1933, and overstepped his bounds. The bill was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1936, and caused Roosevelt to attempt to "pack the Court" by adding 6 more SC Justices to the bench, who would "rubber stamp" his desired actions. Under this kind of pressure, the existing Court knuckled under to FDR's pressure, and allowed his unconstitutional edicts.
From that point forward, the Constitution was effectively usurped(regardless of how much previous usurpation had taken place), and it was "everything goes" after that.
If you look at the debt and all the expansivist programs that have engulfed this nation since then, you can see that is where ALL the debt comes from, and all the problems.
Essentially, the limits were pulled off the Constitution in 1937.
Regarding these other allegations that the Founders provided for "strong central gov't" or "provided for science and arts" is nowhere to be found.
The Constitution was a "house-keepiing document" for a very weak. central gov't, whose basic duty was to act as a bond between the State Governments, and act as "referee", and to protect from infringements on people's protected rights as enumerated. In fact the Fed Gov only met for 2 weeks out of the year for many years, since there was not much for them to do.
There were no provisions of any sort for funding activities outside the purview of gov't, or a Federal nature, but the states and people may pursue them if they wish.
While I hold no particular love for "Robber Barons", it is true that the Industrialists' "Foundations" actually do account for a large portion of funding for arts, education, and sciences. So, while we might question their motives, they do represent a large percentage of funding for these kinds of activities in a "philanthropic" way. It could be claimed that they do it for "tax shelters" or to "promote their interests", or whatever, but it still stands that they ARE doing it.
So then it comes down to the "brass tacks" of "political positions".
Do people promote gov't doing all these myriad things, or do we promote people doing things themselves.
And that is the crux.
And the "crux" precisely, comes down to whether people should be forced by law, and point of gun(enforcement) to fund activities of gov't, which are technically outside the purview of gov't, and only exist by a usurpation of powers which were "grabbed" illegally in 1937.
And my answer is "no".
I understand that there are people in need. I understand that there are people who want to "help them" And that is fine. I understand that there are people who have a particular perception of the "public good" and want to promote that. That's fine too.
As long as they do it with their own money and time.
When it comes to "sticking a gun in other people's faces"(taxation and enforcement) to take their money and spend it on things that are popular with "special interests"(whether that be a corporate special interest, or a socialist special interest), then it is "out of bounds".
It doesn't matter if the "goal" is enriching Lockheed Martin, or distributing welfare checks, it's all the same thing. The excuse doesn't matter. It's still "out of bounds".
The whole "it's for the children" thing, or "we have to control the world for our own safety thru military intervention" thing, are both the SAME THING.
It's just different excuses which are used to "sell the package", and the strings attached.
So, in truth, the excuse of "I want to feed the poor", and the excuse of "I want to militarily control the world for our security", are coming from the same mouth. Government's mouth.
And there is always a tax(point of a gun" associated with funding such.
All sides claim "moral high ground" because it always sounds magnanimous to "feed the poor" and it always sounds magnanimous to "protect our country" or "bring freedom to the oppressed world", but it is altogether something else in reality.
So, we have an issue where various excuses get used for "over-stepping the bounds", so that special interests can be served, at the expense of the general population. And all sides do it.
Now, let's look at this "moral high ground" issue.
Is it REALLY the "moral high ground", such is as being claimed, or is it a ruse?
In case of gov't, it is a ruse.
In case of private funding, it MIGHT be genuine, but not necessarily.
"Doing good" cannot be achieved by "doing bad".
You do good, by doing good.
Even though it might feel really nice to bring a hot meal over to the Jones' house who are out of work, you didn't do good if you went to the Smith's house and stole it off their table.
If you really wanted to "do good" you would take it off your own table, and give it to them in the spirit of sharing, and you both benefit from your actions, because they eat, and you get the joy of giving.
When somebody comes to your house and takes your food(money) to give away, that's theft. No good can come of it.
What's worse, if it happens every single day, then it makes you as poor as the guy who's getting your food, and you have nothing either, and end up in the same boat as he is.
Then, since food and all the other needs are coming in without any effort expended, you both just sit there and wait for it to be delivered, and incentive to work is lost, and we have a perpetual mouth to feed because we created it.
It does damage to the recipient, and the one who's money was taken, both.
So, why is it done, if it's so bad?
It's done to empower gov't over the people, and to get votes from the people who are getting the give-aways. It's not done to "help them". It is done to "ply them with candy" to give power to the politicians who gave out the stolen money.
And it's the same story, no matter if it is given to the "poor" or the "rich".
Theft is theft, no matter what kind of pretty face you try to draw on it.
So, here we have gov't that is wildly empowered to do almost anything, and spend almost any amount on any boondoggle imaginable, and it's a "food fight".
Who can bribe who the most? Who can buy votes the most?
Who can convince the voting public that THEY have the best thing to spend on?
Everybody loses.
So again, "who's the culprit"?
Is the culprit the various special interests who are trying to get the special treatment?
Or is it the gov't and politicians who are peddling away our nation and our posterity?
I submit it is the latter, because the special interests CANNOT get their desired ends alone. Gov't MUST give it to them, and there is where the problem lies.
Interestingly, both major "sides" of the aisile are promoting HEAVY socialist spending.
How so?
The military is essentially a "socialist" enterprise. It is not a 'producer" and it is an expense which is funded solely by taxation. All the money spent on the military is a socialist program expense because of this reason.
Some people think it' is "good" because "we need it" and so on, and so forth.
Conversely, the socialist spending domestically is a socialist enterprise. It is not a "producer" and is an expense. All the money spent on socialist causes are socialist spending too.But some people think it's "good" because "we need it" and so forth.
It's two sides of the same corrupt coin.
It all comes down to bringing gov't back down to where it was supposed to be.
Can we allow some military to remain? Sure, but not like it is now.
Can we allow some safety net to remain? Sure, but not like it is now.
The states should handle most of it, and there is some need for Federal role in the military, although the states can handle alot of that too.
This "food fight" desperately needs a referee.
And that referee needs to be the Constitution, which will limit all sides of this food fight to not "getting what they want". None of them will "like it".
But it's out of control, and they are all going to have to take time in the "penalty box".
As I like to say, "Gravy train over". For everybody.
As for the "public good", the public good is the good of the individual. The "public" is the sum of the individuals. It's not some "amorphous entity" that exists outside of the individuals that comprise it.
Taking from some individuals and giving to other individuals or entities does not advance the "public good".It is all about redistributing the pie, in order to advance somebody's special interest, no matter how good they try to make it sound.
Sorry about the long post, but you pulled up a lot of issues, and I tried to be as brief as I could. There's a whole lot more to this.
.
Topic: The Facts About Wisconsin (Read 14778 times)