A visitor to Irregular Times, Paul Eres, wrote today of his odd notion that in the United States national parks are unconstitutional:
I’m not “against Yellowstone” in the sense that I don’t think it should be a park, I just think that the government should take the constitution seriously. If you believe national parks should be a role of the government, feel free to try to pass a national park amendment to the constitution; I might even vote for it. But as it is now, I don’t support anything that isn’t constitutional.
…
I should also add something: the recent violations of our rights have the same source as this. If we allow the government to be unconstitutional in something as benign as parks, it opens the way for them to be unconstitutional everywhere else (as they have been, increasingly).
I thought perhaps that Paul Eres was alone in his opinion regarding this, but no, he’s not.
National parks are unconstitutional. Now, if individual states want to set land aside for state parks, they’re free to do so as long as their state constitutions allow it.
National parks are unconstitutional.
and so on.
Let’s nip this one in the bud, all right? Read the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States declares that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”
Congress has the Power to collect Taxes and provide for the general Welfare of the United States. A national park system, which is part of the “provision” for the “general Welfare of the United States,” and therefore fits perfectly well within the constitutional authority of the Congress. Yellowstone National Park was created by Congressional authorization in 1872.
It’s that simple. Don’t let the baroque handwaving of the Paulite libertarians convince you otherwise. The Congress is tasked with collecting taxes and providing for the general Welfare. National Parks authorized by Congress and dedicated to the general Welfare are therefore constitutional.
Jim’s right. I think the nay-sayers were making the argument that it SHOULD be unconstitutional. The argument does make sense, and it seems very constructionist/libertarian…”general welfare of the United States” doesn’t generally make people think “oh, Congress has the power to make national parks”. Yet, that’s the way the Supreme Court has interpreted it. And therefore, unless one of those posters is planning on either getting on the Supreme Court or getting a Constitutional amendment passed, we’re going to keep having national parks.
Besides, they are nice to look at,
Actually, Joseph, the general consensus is indeed that the Constitution general welfare clause gives Congress the power to do things like establish National Parks such as Yellowstone.
The majority of the American people regard National Parks as a treasure, not as an injustice foisted upon the American people by a wicked Congress and a Supreme Court run amok.
Oh noes! Teh ebil congress is killing our countries with teh NATIONAL PARKS!!! OH NOES!!
Seriously, National park. Note the National.
They’re probably either pissed off that national parks are free to visit or they’re pissed that there’s no oil drilling being done in them.
They aren’t free to visit, and oil, gas, mining, timber, grazing and other extraction activities are allowed in some national park and other national “protected” areas. Congress clearly has the power to establish them under the “general welfare” clause, but they can also close them down. They need protection from “we, the people,” if we become so materialistic and short-sighted that we no longer think our “welfare” includes these iconic pieces of Americana.
Note that it’s a Unity08 booster who is standing with the anti-park weirdos.
Wow, the illiteracy of many readers here confounds me. I know I sometimes miss things, but damn.
First, I start off by saying “Jim’s right.” I end by saying:
“Yet, that’s the way the Supreme Court has interpreted it. And therefore, unless one of those posters is planning on either getting on the Supreme Court or getting a Constitutional amendment passed, we’re going to keep having national parks.
Besides, they are nice to look at”
If I was standing WITH the “National park weirdos” I would have said that *I* believe it should be changed and I would be OPPOSED to National Parks. All I did was explain, to the best of my ability, the other side of the debate/argument/discussion. There are two sides to just about every argument, and in most cases I believe that people should know about them both, even if they aren’t “mainstream” or typically discussed/studied.
Patricia’s right about the “general consensus”, but it’s important to realize that it’s the “general consensus” due to Supreme Court rulings over the past 150 years, and not due to it being readily apparent by reading the Constitution. The founders of our nation never envisioned that the government would be buying up land to make national parks. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing (i actually think it’s good, and not from a wicked Congress and Supreme Court), but it is an understanable argument from people who believe that any changes to our law/governmental and personal rights should only be if EXPRESSLY made into a Constitutional amendment.
Yes, doing so would take a long time and is therefore not feasible. But applying this to another subject, if the courts/federal goverment did NOT have such latitude, it’s possible we may not be seeing so many uses of executive power/priviledge as we’ve seen with Bush.
Just food for thought.
The founders of our nation never envisioned computers, either. Or bubble gum. Or ice cream.
They did envision Article I, Section 8 of the Constituion, which tasks the Congress with raising taxes and providing for the General Welfare of the United States. To the extent that the presence of national parks increases the general welfare of the U.S., Congressional action to create them is completely constitutional.
While there may always be two sides to an argument, Joseph, there are not always two valid sides. There isn’t a valid argument that 2+2=5, and although people can make an argument to that effect I don’t have to respect it. Given the incredibly clear language of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, I feel no need to respect the assertions of people who say that national parks are unconstitutional.
“Given the incredibly clear language of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, I feel no need to respect the assertions of people who say that national parks are unconstitutional.”
On Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution
First, our Constitution is setup to limit federal government, so instead of listing what it can’t do, it basically states what they can do. The context that “general welfare” is used, is a brief summary of the types of things taxes will be used for, but the specifics are listed on the following lines. It is not logical to think that “general welfare” would let the federal government spend on what they see fit as helping the people. Why? If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.” But, we can ignore all this logic and just look to the father of our Constitution.
“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.” – James Madison, Father of your Constitution
or how about
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, Father of the Declaration of Independence
Second, as stated below in another post, once the government opens its arms , it divides the citizens into two groups: those who receive direct (personal, individual) benefit from the government, and those who do not. That is why the founders designed a FEDERAL system of government that provided only for the “GENERAL” (meaning- non-specific) WELFARE of the people by confining its services to things like “national defense” and “interstate commerce”.
If you advocate for federal spending on social welfare programs, you are describing a redistribution of income (MY income) for the benefit of Specific individual citizens INSTEAD of for the GENERAL.
The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals – rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths – would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
Third, and the most definitive answer is your definition of ‘welfare’ is Animal Farm BS.
Whatever your dirty politicians and lawyers are telling you is wrong. Medicare, Medicaid, and any other government welfare/health insurance is unconstitutional.
Congress’s Power to spend, from YOUR Constitution
“to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States”
And no, welfare here is not section 8 or food stamps, but the basic government activities specifically enumerated in the Constitution
Definition of welfare
Mr. Webster
WELFARE, n. [well and fare, a good faring; G.]
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to PERSONS.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to STATES.
—————————————
Congress has the power to spend for the “general Welfare of the United STATES”
NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT
general Welfare of the United states PEOPLE
THIS IS VERY CLEAR, but the definition of welfare as it applies to STATES has been removed from most dictionaries.
Not only is it clear in the Constitution with the real definition of welfare, our founding fathers wrote plenty on government’s role with charity
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” – Thomas Jefferson
“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” – Thomas Jefferson
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” – James Madison FATHER of the CONSTITUTION
“Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” – James Madison, ONCE AGAIN FATHER of the CONSTITUTION
“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.” – Benjamin Franklin
Well, Tom, when you haven’t been making false statements (ex. yes, the Constitution most certainly DOES often list what the federal government can’t do) you’ve been selectively quoting from the Madisonians. Why didn’t you quote Alexander Hamilton? Why didn’t you quote Supreme Court rulings that have consistently sided with the Hamiltonians? I think I know why, but I’d like to hear the answer from you to be sure.
“Well, Tom, when you haven’t been making false statements”
I said,”basically”, because I know there are a few exceptions. Why not comment on the real meat of what I said instead of grasping at straws?
“Why didn’t you quote Alexander Hamilton?”
Hamilton was not the primary author of our Constitution.
“Why didn’t you quote Supreme Court rulings that have sided with the Hamiltonians consistently since the early years of the Republic?”
Because, I was not talking about how corrupt the SC is, starting with Judicial review. We could also talk about the SC and FDR, but that is another topic.
“I think I know why”
Why?
Wow. So you disagree with the concept of judicial review, too, even though Article III Section 2 of the Constitution states “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;”
Well, then, Tom, we’ll make that two aspects of constitutional thinking that have dominated since the earliest years of the United States that you don’t agree with. That explains why you don’t agree with the consequent policy.
You dismiss Alexander Hamilton as constitutionally irrelevant, when actually he is just one of the founders who you disagree with. He was hardly absent from debates regarding the constitution, but rather was essential to them — he wrote most of the federalist papers. He just wasn’t in the camp you selectively quoted from. He just was in the camp whose views on the general welfare clause were accepted by courts whose role as a third branch of government you dismiss. Alexander Hamilton represented New York at the constitutional convention and wrote extensively on constitutional philosophy. You just don’t like what he had to say, so you shoved him down the memory hole.
You don’t like the way history turned out, which is a fine intellectual position to take, but man up and be honest enough to declare that you want to nullify one, no, now two understandings of the U.S. Constitution that go back to when the ink was still drying on its signatures and your great-great-great-grandfathers weren’t even twinkles in their mothers’ eyes.
I don’t think we’re disagreeing on anything. Of course providing national parks is Constitutional, since the Supreme Court ruled it is Constitutional. And the position that it is unconstitutional is not “invalid”, except to the extent that it is incorrect, since it is firmly established Constitutional law that “general welfare” is interpreted broadly.
As I said, in most cases people should know both sides to an argument, even if they aren’t well known. This is one such case. Not for the validity of the argument (our government would be pretty ineffective and many advances our society has incurred would not exist if “general welfare” was interpreted strictly), but because people should realize that there are multiple views and arguments to be made in regard to MANY clauses within the Constitution.
Sure, you may not want to respect the assertions of the people who say that national parks are unconstitutional, but you and many others may want to understand it. To make it relevent, realize that the way that the Constitution is interpreted affects, in a very general and overall sense, the power of the Federal Government over the United States, especially in relation to personal liberty/rights and State government power/soverignity. Sure, it may be nice that the Federal government has the POWER to make National Parks, but realize that the government also can/has recognized its own POWER to declare “eminent domain” simply to create and/or increase a commercial tax base from a better use of the land (ie businesses instead of homes) and also the POWER to eavesdrop on US citizens, or the POWER to regulate what we can see/hear via the FCC.
I agree that the current interpretation of that clause is a good one for national parks and our welfare, but I’m urging people to look at the Constitution more wholistically. Judges tend to make law consistent, and as nice as it is to say “this is a good use of federal government power, but this is a bad use” it’s important to recognize that every ruling by the courts on the Constitution has many secondary effects, some of which may not be as nice and peachy as “oh look, we have parks”.
I had no idea that establishing national parks gives the federal government the right to tap my phone.
Joseph never ceases to amaze me.
BTW, did you know that there is no authorization in the constitution for a “navy”. Or “air force”? Or CIA? Or even DARPA–that Gore authorized to create the internet? Your computer is unconstitutional.
UHH, yes there is a power to have a Navy. You need to reread the Constitution. Its the 12th power listed in the document.
Providing for national defense is in the Constitution and even with a strict interpretation, would require tools to do so.
Providing for general welfare, with a strict interpretation, would not require National parks. When the nation was founded, I doubt they thought “the federal government’s going to need to buy parks”. They probably would have thought the states would rather do so.
And establishing national aprks DOESNt give the federal government the right to tap your phone. But being ignorant about the Constitution and all of the arguments being made DOES enable the government to do so. It’s called playing on the ignorance of the people.
I’m not saying national parks are bad, and I don’t even agree with the extremists who believe we should rewrite constituional law to be all about state rights and not having the federal government do anything. I am pointing out, however, that it is a bad idea to be closed-minded and dismiss opposing arguments on face. Sure, it’d be bad if we didn’t have national parks, but would it be bad if the government didnt have as much ability to tap our phones? To set up special courts? Allow for internment (WW2-Korematzu decision)? It’s all based on the way the Constitution is INTERPRETED by COURTS, and the sooner people actually study the constitution and realize that the terms have a lot left for interpretation, the better for our nation.
They’re not being dismissed on face. I think it’s safe to say that Iroquois has read the Constitution, and that Patricia and the Animist have read the Constitution. I certainly have. They’re being dismissed on the basis of having read the Constitution and having noted what it says.
The Constitution does not say “The Congress shall raise taxes and provide for those things which are absolutely required to keep the general Welfare from collapsing altogether.” The Constitution says “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” And unless someone can prove that national parks are detrimental to the general Welfare or have no effect on the general Welfare, it’s unreasonable to argue that national parks are unconstitutional.
I was being sarcastic.
The constitution does NOT say providing for the national defense needs tools any more than it says providing for the general welfare needs tools.
Maybe the Grand Canyon should belong to the highest bidder and not to the American people.
Okay let me know which of the following is being disagreed with:
1. What the Supreme Court rules as the meaning of the Constitution, through case law, determines what is and is not Constitutional.
2. People can have multiple interpretations of the Constitution.
3. The Supreme Court has changed what is/is not Constitutional over time due to differing interpretations of the Constitution, over time.
4. People should learn about the Constitution in it’s entirety, especially the way it is currently interpreted, but also multiple possible ways of interpreting it.
5. The general welfare clause is currently interpreted broadly.
6. In some cases it is good to have a federal government that exercises less power over its people.
7. It is possible to believe that the general welfare clause should be more strictly interpreted in the future, in order to restrict overall federal governmental power.
Now, “proving nationl parks are detrimental to the general welfare” is a fallacious argument. No one is arguing that it’s unconstitutional for the federal government to HARM general welfare, and therefore it needs to be proven that parks HARM welfare in order to be unconstitutional. National parks clearly improve the nation, and are good to have. The question though, is whether or not an interpretation of “general welfare” that includes creating national parks is a bit of a stretch on governmental powers? If so, at what extent does the ability for the federal government do things for our “general welfare” end?
You haven’t done the research to answer the questions you said you were curious about finding answers to regarding Unity08. So why should anybody answer your seven questions?
What questions about Unity08? I’m waiting and seeing what the result is of Unity08. I think my last statement on Unity08 consisted of realizing that even IF all of your criticisms are accurate, they all amount to NOTHING until an actual harmful result is proven.
ex. Even IF Unity08 is made up of a bunch of political insiders it doesn’t matter UNLESS it causes Unity08 to be biased toward a specific candidate/try to rig the vote/etc.
In the end, I’m not arguing that anything you’ve said about Unity08 is untrue, I’m just saying that everything you’ve said about Unity08 is 100% irrelevent until/unless Unity08 is ruined due to the things you mentioned (lobbyist donations, the current failings to have an accurate survey, etc).
So yeah, the reason why you should tell me which points you agree/disagree with above (since, obviously, they weren’t 7 questions) is because you want to have a evolving discussion. Or maybe it’s just so that you can actually point to what part of my argument you disagree with, or if that’s not enough, so you can re-establish the validity of your posts.
That wasn’t the question I asked.
Jim asks:
“So why should anybody answer your seven questions?”
I answer:
“the reason why you should tell me which points you agree/disagree with above (since, obviously, they weren’t 7 questions) is because you want to have a evolving discussion. Or maybe it’s just so that you can actually point to what part of my argument you disagree with, or if that’s not enough, so you can re-establish the validity of your posts.”
And the first part of the post points out how I didn’t have any questions which I needed to research. So yeah…I think someone’s not reading my posts completely.
The logic behind “let’s nip this one in the bud” is typical of the ILLOGIC behind “loose” construction of the Constitution.
If the “general welfare” can mean just about anything the Congress wants . . . why, oh why did those Founding Fathers bother to ITEMIZE all the specific powers for the federal government? Seems a collosal waste of time. They could just have easily written “Congress can pass any laws it wants to.”
Of course, not one single state would have joined such a union to begin with.
“Nip this one in the bud” also needs to explain Federalist #45, written by none other than James Madison. “Bud-nipper”
also has to explain his way around the 10th amendment.
If citizens begin to read the Constitution, they might be able to think for themselves, rather than allowing judicial “experts” to tell them how to think.
‘Course I’ve read the Constitution.
RMB ignores the entire Hamiltonian strain of thinking and writing about the Constitution, which has been embraced by the Supreme Court.
Jim says that “Hamiltonian” thinking has been embraced by the supreme court. No argument there. But then, where does it say that the supreme court gets to interpret the Constitution? And, if “Hamiltonian thinking” holds current sway, what will keep it from changing its thinking? They’ve done that, you know.
And how does “Hamiltonianism” square with the 10th amendment? Oh, I know. We pretend it isn’t even in there.
The court can decide cases “with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” It’s in Art. III, Sec. 2, so you can quick reference the document that you keep thinking people ought to actually READ.
My, that sounds as if the Sup. Ct. is under Congressional control.
Oh, then there’s a little Presidential Oath of Office about “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Somehow I missed that for the Supreme Court in the Constitution.
This means that “W’s” stupid remark, when signing the McCain-Feingold Bill into law, rates as a 3rd grade understanding of the Constitution. The remark that went like this: “It’s probably unconstitutional, but that’s up to the supreme court to decide.”
No, a prez can refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws. See T. Jefferson, Alien & Sedition Laws. Also, A. Jackson: “The supreme court has made its decision, now let them try to enforce it.”
But those pesky “lose constructionists” keep inventing things that aren’t actually IN the Constitution, so why should these facts bother them?
Let’s have done with the claim that the “general welfare” clause makes national parks legal. You find it in there, and I’ll believe.
Also, bet you wouldn’t want to pass an amendment to MAKE them legal . . . know why? because it would actually call public attention to the fact that this and myriad other federally assumed powers are… UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
There’s only a problem with the 10th Amendment if you interpret Article I, Section 8 as you do, which is to say that when the Constitution says the Congress shall have the power to collect taxes and promote the general welfare, that the Congress is actually NOT given the power to collect taxes and promote the general welfare.
If, on the other hand, you take the Hamiltonian position that when the Constitution says the Congress shall have the power to collect taxes and promote the general welfare, that the Congress is actually given the power to collect taxes and promote the general welfare, then the 10th Amendment is not a problem.
Because, see, the 10th Amendment reads, “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” and Article I Section 8 reads “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”
The Hamiltonian strain of constitutional thought is entirely compatible with the 10th Amendment.
It is compatible only in the sense that the human mind has to struggle over the meaning of the word “is”. (see: President Bill “Sex Fiend” Clinton, currently disallowed from arguing before the federal courts as a persona-non-grata).
No, to be serious, I want to compliment Jim in his replies. However, I would also wish that strict constructionists not be dismissed out of hand as cranks or nuts. It is perfectly reasonable to debunk loose constructionism in light of Federalist #45. Mind carefully: the Federalist Papers were written as an explanatory set of treatises fo allay fears that the new “general government” (a term used at that time) would not become an overpowering threat to people livelihood and freedom.
Everything that Jefferson and Madison warned about has been sustained by history… thanks to Hamiltonianism. If you live in the west or Alaska, and cannot even build a road between two small villages without an act of Congress, you would understand these frustrations.
Times change. Strict constructionsim is a threat only to socialists, whose time is about up.
Only if you define “socialism” so broadly as to include everyone who considers national parks to be an enhancement to our general welfare.
Iroquois:
You guys must be east coast.
OF COURSE libertarians complain about “corporate welfare”. I’m not even a libertarian and I know that! Your complaint, however, stems not from arguments over “constitutionality” but from a mere desire to excuse the OTHER type of welfare: hand outs, entitlements, and the like.
Frederic Bastiat “On Law”: Judge what the laws does in this way. If it performs a function that, were it to be done by a private citizen would be considered criminal, then the law is unjust.
If you wanted me to pay for your daughter’s college education, AND HELD ME UP AT GUNPOINT, you are a criminal.
But if you use the law to do it, that’s SOCIALISM.
Marx loved it.
Jim:
Why should I pay for the upkeep of a national park that I will never see? I can’t afford it, I live too far away. I don’t need it.
If that isn’t socialism, what is?
Want a park to recreate in?
Get the states to set it aside, then PAY AS YOU GO.
If you don’t know what socialism is, why don’t you look it up?
And you’re wrong about where Iroquois and I live.
Your disdain is plain. Sorry we don’t fit your stereotypes.
Wish you guys would read words instead of invent them. Notice it was stated that STATE PARKS would handle the desire for recreation…NOT big corporations taking over.
Selfish? How about making people pay for YOUR use, instead of paying for it yourself? Now just who is being selfish! You pay for my dinner and I’ll eat it. You pay for my park, and I’ll use it.
Oink. Socialists.
“Socialism is where everybody tries to live off of everybody else.”
You still haven’t figured it out. Why should I pay for something that I will never use? It is “mine” only insofar as the government allows me to use it; or, if I want to use it. Then, I must use it the way they tell me. If I want to bring in a mountain bike, I have to follow their rules. If I want a motorized bike, same deal. If I want to use the bushes, maybe that’s illegal too. And if a grizzly bear attacks me, I can’t even defend myself.
Go to Denali Park and sit in the stupid school buses as they waddle down the road nobody else is allowed to travel. Great experience if you’re retired and over 75.
I’m going to the theater, you’re not. Well, I want everyone to pony up a few cents and make it affordable for me. But some people don’t ever go to the theater. Too bad, pay out.
You go to a national park, I don’t. Living in Alaska, I don’t need it. Even our own parks I don’t or cannot visit. Know why? Because only Jimmy Carter and John Denver can afford to get into: Lake Clark, Gates of the Arctic or other parks.
Sounds like selfish elitism to me. You’re rich, go enjoy it. You’re a poor dweeb? Too bad. NO WAY Congress would ever put a road into these places. So, how much of them really belong to me?
But I’ve got a better idea: Alaska can decide best how to use this land. If you want to come up and see it, pay for it. I’m not going to make a little old lady in Canton, Ohio, whose only recreation is seeing her children, pay for these parks.
Again, how selfish IS that? making someone pay for something they can never or don’t ever want, to use.
It’s the socialists who are selfish.
You still haven’t figured it out. Why should I pay for something that I will never use? It is “mine” only insofar as the government allows me to use it; or, if I want to use it. Then, I must use it the way they tell me. If I want to bring in a mountain bike, I have to follow their rules. If I want a motorized bike, same deal. If I want to use the bushes, maybe that’s illegal too. And if a grizzly bear attacks me, I can’t even defend myself.
Go to Denali Park and sit in the stupid school buses as they waddle down the road nobody else is allowed to travel. Great experience if you’re retired and over 75.
I’m going to the theater, you’re not. Well, I want everyone to pony up a few cents and make it affordable for me. But some people don’t ever go to the theater. Too bad, pay out.
You go to a national park, I don’t. Living in Alaska, I don’t need it. Even our own parks I don’t or cannot visit. Know why? Because only Jimmy Carter and John Denver can afford to get into: Lake Clark, Gates of the Arctic or other parks.
Sounds like selfish elitism to me. You’re rich, go enjoy it. You’re a poor dweeb? Too bad. NO WAY Congress would ever put a road into these places. So, how much of them really belong to me?
But I’ve got a better idea: Alaska can decide best how to use this land. If you want to come up and see it, pay for it. I’m not going to make a little old lady in Canton, Ohio, whose only recreation is seeing her children, pay for these parks.
Again, how selfish IS that? making someone pay for something they can never or don’t ever want, to use.
Why haven’t you paid me to post on my server? Why, you must be a “socialist!”
By the way, this appears to be Bob Bird who is running for Senate in Alaska against Ted Stevens.
You’re doing better than Ted Stevens, Mr. Bird, but that isn’t saying too much.
You’re all missing the point. When the federal government is called a “national” government, it CAN do whatever it pleases, regardless of what the Constitution says or doesn’t say. This is because, as Joseph points out, the federal government then becomes the final judge of its own powers– i.e. the Constitution means only what the federal government SAYS it means. And it has clearly ruled that it has the power to create a national park system.
In fact, it can do ANYTHING it wants, since no person, group, state or minority-group of states can do a THING about it. Even if 100% of the US population proteted it in writing, and mailed in a vote, then it would have ZERO legal impact.
Welcome to the Leviathan: you can’t have a national government, without supreme national authority; but still, people delude themselves into thinking that they can control the juggernaut– as long as it’s running over someone ELSE.
Bill,
Before the Civil War there was no national government. It was a Federal System in which the Federal Govt worked within the powers delegated to them in the Constitution. When Lincoln became President the South seceded because Lincoln was for a Nationalized Govt in which the Govt would create a national bank, promote internal improvements (building a railroad system)and have a high tariff. These powers are not in the Constitution. It was what we call today, Corporate Welfare.
So now because of the outcome of the Civil War we have what Lincoln was for all along. Socialism and a National Government
escriban algo gue importe o esgue no tienemas
Constitution 101
I dont see a mention of National Parks in the list. I do see # 6, a Post Office listed and thats pretty darn specific.
The 17 areas which are the enumerated (numbered)Few & Defined Powers of The Federal Govt.
Sec. 8
1.To borrow money
2.To regulate Commerce among the States
3.To establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization & Bankruptcies throughout
4.To Coin Money, to set its standard and fix the standard of weights & measures
5.To provide for the Punishment of Counterfeiting the current Securities & Current Coin
6.To establish Post Offices & Post Roads
7.To promote the progress of Science & Useful Arts. To secure for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings & discoveries
8.To Constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court
9.To define and punish Piracies & Felonies committed on the high seas & Offenses against the Law of Nations
10.To Declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, & to make laws concerning captures on Land and Water
11.To raise & support an army, BUT no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.
12.To provide and maintain a Navy
13.To make Rules for the Government & Regulation of the land and naval forces.
14.To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the UNION (not nation, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions
15.To provide for organizing, arming, & disciplining, the Militia and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
16.To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District(What is now Washington DC)…and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the consent of the State in which Forts,Magazines & Arsenals, Dock Yards and other needful buildings (basically military bases and government bldgs)
17.To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into the Execution the FOREGOING powers vested in the Constitution…
Why did the Founders go and enumerate/list all of these powers in the Constitution if all it takes is a mention of the General Welfare Clause to do what they want?? BECAUSE the General Welfare Clause was nothing but a Preamble or summary of those specific powers.
Why would they have used the word “FOREGOING” which is in the “Necessary & Proper Clause”???
James Madison asked why they would have included a list of specifics if the Preamble were sufficient enough?
SonOfLiberty you forgot one.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and (general Welfare of the United States;) but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Let me also take this opportunity to add that when Madison spoke of General Welfare he mentioned Miscellanous Objects of General Utility. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.asp
Then in Federalist 43 he mentions “To dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the “territory or other property belonging to the United States”, with a proviso, that nothing in the Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State. ”This is a power of very great importance, and required by considerations similar to those which show the propriety of the former. The proviso annexed is proper in itself, and was probably rendered absolutely necessary by jealousies and questions concerning the Western territory sufficiently known to the public.
Madison knew that the Government would own land. The National Forests are known as Lands of Many uses thus making them miscellanous objects of general utility and they are property that belongs to the United States.”
There you have it. They are constitutional.
This is pure rubbish! James Madison addressed this in Federalist 41 (prior to final ratification of the Constitution). The same issue was also addressed by several States, as noted in the ratification notes. The States believed that they had prevented this sort of misconstruction with the 10th Amendment, but apparently not. Even the preamble to the Bill of Rights makes it clear that the intent was to limit the power of the federal government. Take a look at Madison’s words in defending the Constitution to the reluctant legislature of New York:
“Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. 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…But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever?”–James Madison, Federalist 41
It was not until after ALL of the States had signed the Constitution that Hamilton forwarded the notion that the federal Congress government can tax for whatever it pleases and is the sole judge of whether or not such taxation is for “the General Welfare”. (in his Opinion on the National Bank). There’s no room here, but I’ve written pages upon pages about this, even breaking down the instance in which Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers, warns about the type or reasoning that might be used by “men disposed to usurp” and then resorts to the EXACT SAME reasoning in his Opinion on the National Bank. Of Course the federal government would side with the man who gives them limitless power, but the majority of men in the State legislatures, from whom all federal authority is derived, were intent on protecting their sovereignty.
As you say, James Madison would disagree with the understanding of the General Welfare Clause. But the Hamilton view held sway beginning with the very founding of this country and has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was affirmed by Marbury v. Madison (with James Madison’s view prevailing) as the body that determines what constitutes constitutionality. You do agree with Marbury v. Madison, don’t you?
National parks are inconstitutional. The general welfare clause is the most abused. Parks do not provide general welfare. A lot of what the federal government calls general welfare is really specific welfare for specific interest or groups. General welfare in the founders days meant national defense, sound money and protecting individual rights. It has nothing to do wirh seizing land, giving everyone free healthcare, food and shelter. It sure had nothing to do with seizing a states land.
I’m tickled by the irony that you support “national defense”, but express outrage at “seizing land”. “National defense” has been the pretext for most of the land seizures conducted by the federal government.
Live free… by thinking.
National defense, individual rights and economic matters are discussed separately from the general welfare in the Constitution.
Well referencing the general welfare clause, wouldn’t anything Congress chose to do be Constitutional? The fact the founders actually took the time to put 17 preceding enumerated powers in the Constitution tells you the “general welfare” clause allows Congress to pass laws for the general welfare, as long as the laws can relate or be supported by the preceeding powers. Also Thomas Jefferson said taxes collected for the general welfare should be for things which ALL people can benefit from. Take poor people in the inner cities, maybe Detroit as an example. They’re paying federal income taxes. Will they ever have a chance to visit say the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone? Doubtful. So how can you use the general welfare as an argument? It holds no water, period. Fact is we’re all paying federal income taxes for many things none of us will ever benefit from.