Do most Americans still believe in the Constitution anymore?

Feb 2019
2,098
552
here and there
Take it up with SCOTUS< its what they said.
Jefferson actually was livid that SCOTUS was the sole branch to get to decide what is Constitutional and what is not, which was solidified with the Madison vs. Marbury ruling.

It is no where in the Constitution that they should be the only branch to decide this.

Now if were not for the Civil War, we would probably be still living with the Dred Scott Decision as well.

Even though Jefferson lost that fight, at least he was there to do away with the Alien and Sedition Act which made it illegal to speak out against the government.

Imagine left leaning loonies, no ability to speak out against the Cheeto!

Unfortunately, what provisions were left from the Alien and Sedition Acts FDR used to lock up innocent Japanese Americans.
 
Dec 2018
2,605
1,595
Unionville Indiana
So Congress acted upon Hamilton's interpretation of the General Welfare clause instead of Madison who wrote the General welfare clause?

Now why does this not surprise me?
Madison did not write the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution. (It was a group effort.) Are you aware that Hamilton was a Framer of the Constitution?

Which Framers meet with your approval and which ones don't?

 
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007
Feb 2019
2,098
552
here and there
Madison did not write the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution. (It was a group effort.) Are you aware that Hamilton was a Framer of the Constitution?

Which Framers meet with your approval and which ones don't?

Madison is called the Father of the Constitution for a reason. In addition, it was evident that his vote was to uphold the notion of a limited government and not an ever expanding Federal government to handle all our problems. Was Madison tricked by Hamilton? Perhaps, but that is how Progressives roll.

Without deception, Progressivism would disappear off the face of the earth.
 
Jul 2008
19,064
12,953
Virginia Beach, VA
Madison is called the Father of the Constitution for a reason. In addition, it was evident that his vote was to uphold the notion of a limited government and not an ever expanding Federal government to handle all our problems. Was Madison tricked by Hamilton? Perhaps, but that is how Progressives roll.

Without deception, Progressivism would disappear off the face of the earth.
It ain’t a progressive that’s told approximately 13,000 lies since being elected President
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007
Dec 2018
2,605
1,595
Unionville Indiana
Madison is called the Father of the Constitution for a reason. In addition, it was evident that his vote was to uphold the notion of a limited government and not an ever expanding Federal government to handle all our problems. Was Madison tricked by Hamilton? Perhaps, but that is how Progressives roll.

Without deception, Progressivism would disappear off the face of the earth.
Another cheap shot aimed at "evil" progressives. Is that all you have in your tiny arsenal? Didn't they teach research methods or the Constitution where you attended school?


... With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause;608 Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers; in other words, as little more than a power of self-support.609 From early times, Congress has acted upon Hamilton’s interpretation. Appropriations for subsidies610 and for an ever-increasing variety of “internal improvements”611 constructed by the Federal Government, had their beginnings in the administrations of Washington and Jefferson.612 Since 1914, federal grants-in-aid, which are sums of money apportioned among the states for particular uses, often conditioned upon the duplication of the sums by the recipient state, and upon observance of stipulated restrictions as to their use, have become commonplace. ...

... By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the “general welfare.” The Court accords great deference to Congress’s decision that a spending program advances the general welfare,620 and has even questioned whether the restriction is judicially enforceable.621 Dispute, such as it is, turns on the conditioning of funds. ...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007
Feb 2019
2,098
552
here and there
Another cheap shot aimed at "evil" progressives. Is that all you have in your tiny arsenal? Didn't they teach research methods or the Constitution where you attended school?


... With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause;608 Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers; in other words, as little more than a power of self-support.609 From early times, Congress has acted upon Hamilton’s interpretation. Appropriations for subsidies610 and for an ever-increasing variety of “internal improvements”611 constructed by the Federal Government, had their beginnings in the administrations of Washington and Jefferson.612 Since 1914, federal grants-in-aid, which are sums of money apportioned among the states for particular uses, often conditioned upon the duplication of the sums by the recipient state, and upon observance of stipulated restrictions as to their use, have become commonplace. ...

... By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the “general welfare.” The Court accords great deference to Congress’s decision that a spending program advances the general welfare,620 and has even questioned whether the restriction is judicially enforceable.621 Dispute, such as it is, turns on the conditioning of funds. ...
The Articles of Confederation did not properly address the needed power given to the Federal government. That's why the Constitution was adopted.

However, that simply was not good enough for Progressives as they further expanded the powers of the Federal Leviathan at the turn of the 20th century, specifically giving the creation of the income tax.

Now we have a system where half the nation is divided every Presidential cycle, much like how it was before the Civil War, and a federal Congress that can't seem to muster an approval rating greater than 20% every year. It's been this way for decades, yet we call ourselves a Democracy as these same folks manage to find a way back into office?

They system is broke. Thanks so much for breaking it.
 
Dec 2018
2,605
1,595
Unionville Indiana
The Articles of Confederation did not properly address the needed power given to the Federal government. That's why the Constitution was adopted.

However, that simply was not good enough for Progressives as they further expanded the powers of the Federal Leviathan at the turn of the 20th century, specifically giving the creation of the income tax.

Now we have a system where half the nation is divided every Presidential cycle, much like how it was before the Civil War, and a federal Congress that can't seem to muster an approval rating greater than 20% every year. It's been this way for decades, yet we call ourselves a Democracy as these same folks manage to find a way back into office?

They system is broke. Thanks so much for breaking it.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The Rush Revere books are a joke.
 
Apr 2015
2,178
2,478
Stockport, Cheshire. UK
From observing the USA from across the pond it seems the Constitution is something that all Americans agree should be protected at all costs !
..........As long as it supports their argument, if it doesn't the Constitution is irrelevant to them.
 
Dec 2018
4,894
1,340
New England
From observing the USA from across the pond it seems the Constitution is something that all Americans agree should be protected at all costs !
..........As long as it supports their argument, if it doesn't the Constitution is irrelevant to them.
Alas, too true.