The political smallness of Republicans Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo was exposed once again yesterday, as both presidential candidates voted against the formation of a new National Historical Park in Paterson, New Jersey. The site for the National Historical Park is widely recognized for its long association with a series of important historical developments in the economy of the USA, ranging from the work of Alexander Hamilton to the development of hydropower. Establishing a National Historical Park there provides a focus for the education of Americans about certain aspects of America’s economic development, including the transition from slavery to relatively free labor. I’m not an avid student of economic history, but I can see why it’s in the national interest to preserve and recognize historical sites like those being included in the new Paterson Great Falls National Park.
Tancredo and Paul don’t see it that way. Even though 50 Republicans crossed party lines to support H.R. 189, the House bill establishing the new park, Tancredo and Paul voted against it. On what grounds do they oppose the park? On the grounds that it’s a waste of money? The establishment of a new historical park is a tiny expense for the federal government, especially when compared with the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent every year to keep the unnecessary military occupation of Iraq going on and on and on. Besides, federal funds for the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park will only be spent if non-federal matching funds, including private donations, are made available.
It’s not as if the new National Historical Park will grab anyone’s private land. The power of eminent domain will not be used. The legislation states, “The Secretary may acquire land or interests in land within the boundaries of the park from willing sellers only by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange.”
The opposition of Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo to the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park demonstrates the smallness of their political vision. We need a President who is capable of a broader vision of America, one that acknowledges the importance of preserving tangible connections to America’s history.
(Source: The Library of Congress)
I actually live in Paterson, NJ and I agree with Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. It’s not that I don’t think the Great Falls area is worthy of being a national park (I love the place, I walked past it each day on the way to school) but I agree with them that the government has no business declaring what is and isn’t a park, that’s not the government’s job, nowhere in the constitution does it give the government a right to declare national parks. If Alexander Hamilton, the founder of Paterson, were alive today, he’d agree with Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo.
So, then, you’re against Yellowstone Park too, just like Ron Paul.
Correct, I believe Yellowstone should be a state park, not a national park. 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.
You probably should stop using the Internet, then. It’s here thanks to DARPA, a federal government program. And the Internet is definitely not in the Constitution. And you say you don’t support anything that isn’t constitutional.
When I was in the Marine Corps we used the internet for military purposes. We tracked our inventory etc..
Now if the military developed the internet as a way to communicate with the other military branches, then using the argument that the Constitution gives the Feds the authority to raise and Army and have and maintain a Navy, & then using the Necessary & Proper Clause, you can say that the internet is Constitutional. As long as it falls into what is necessary & proper for carrying out those powers listed in the Constitution then its good.
Jim, I suppose toilet paper in the military is wrong too??? That is not listed in the Constitution either.
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).
As for the internet, I think it was constitutional. It was created by national defense, which is a constitutional role of government. The government doesn’t regulate nor own the internet, it only played a part (and not even a big part) in developing it.
But the greater point here is: the constitution is a document that limits with the government can do. It’s not a document that limits what *we* can do. If it’s not in the constitution, it doesn’t limit me, it limits the government. It’s odd to say that I should be limited by it in the same way that the government would be. It doesn’t prescribe what the people can’t do, only what the state can’t do.
Paul, now you’ve made a serious claim, and so it needs to be addressed seriously.
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.”
A national park system, which is part of the pursuit of the general Welfare of the United States, fits perfectly well within the constitutional authority of the Congress. Yellowstone National Park was created by Congressional authorization in 1872.
It’s irresponsible of you to try to pull other people into your misinformed position.
Uh….again, you need to read the rest of what comes after the General Welfare Clause there Jim. I see 17 numbered powers/areas finishing up with the Necessary & Proper Clause which is for the FOREGOING powers. Why would they have made a list if all that was needed was the General Welfare Clause?? Also, you need to do some research in the Federalist Papers since these Essays are the correct interpretation of the Constitution by those who WROTE it.
You mean you feel they are the correct interpretation. The Supreme Court has for a very long time adopted Alexander Hamilton’s, not James Madison’s, view of the general welfare clause.
Yes, Paul. If you continue to support the absurd position of Ron Paul, then you must claim that Yellowstone Park does not contribute to the general Welfare of the United States.
Do you accept or reject that position?
When I was a kid our family got one of those golden eagle limitless camping stickers for the windshield and we camped at national parks everywhere from Yellowstone to Yosemite. But that’s not what I want to complain about. To get from one national park to another we traveled on the U.S. HIGHWAY SYSTEM.
Now, I don’t remembering seeing anything in the constitution that says we can have a federal highway system and I’m certain it’s unconstitutional. Whose idea was Route 66 anyway. What about the interstate highway system? It’s a pinko commie plot, that’s what it is. If our constitution starts getting eroded by highways, who knows what stunt they might try to pull next. Secret wiretapping? Bursting into your house without a search warrant?
What we need is a presidential candidate with the intestinal fortitude not only to get rid of Yellowstone, but also to rip out all those highways people drive on to get to it. If somebody wants a highway, let them build their own.
President Eisenhower wanted a National Highway System. The only rational & the only way it could be passed by Congress was that if we ever had to move our tanks from one side of the country to the other we would need a highway that could be wide enough and durable enough to handle the weight.
The Constitution gives the Feds the power to raise an army & You have to be able to move Army equipment around so by using the Necessary & Proper Clause it was considered Constitutional.
Paul fell right into Jim’s (perfectly obvious, so not really a) trap. Paul’s response “As for the internet, I think it was constitutional. It was created by national defense, which is a constitutional role of government.” points out how very Not literally the constitution can be taken when convenient. If the largest porn and idea distribution network ever is part of our “national defense” then clearly some nature preserves and historical sites can be part of the “general welfare of the United States.” In particular, you may think all humans should be put to work or death, but surely the animals deserve protection across state lines.
There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that Congress should be held in a building!
Therefore, I and all other Ron Paul supporters call for the immediate destruction of the Capitol building! If Ron Paul is elected, all legislative activity will occur during open air picnics on the National Mall!
Cuckoo! Cuckoo!
The founders did guide our country from tea shops and town halls. They took it upon themselves, since people of your caliber could not be let do so without an intelligent bodyin control. It was a vice-president who thought, on the grounds of his traitorous intentions, A. Hamilton should be shot to death! Ron Paul is the only defender of the constitution I see in public service. Those unwilling to defend the constitution will lose it for thhemselves and all future generations, forever.
The NPS already struggles paying for its operating costs, and now they’ll have to find tens of millions more to develop/operate this park over the next decade. This pork project adds more burden to the NPS. The NPS actually found that the site, while historically significant, did not meet its criteria for becoming a unit of the National Park Service, but Congress ignored the NPS’s findings. It sure helps get politicians re-elected, though!
The National Park Service is not made up of elected officials who represent their constituents. It’s the right of Congress to decide what funding is worthwhile. And, if the National Park Service is underfunded, the answer is to adequately fund it.
Are you seriously complaining about the budget for a national historical park when the military and the wars it fights robs us of trillions of dollars?
It wasn’t that anybody complained about it, it was that Congress put it to a vote and Paul’s position was challenged by this article.
Comments 7 through 13 all misunderstand or misrepresent Dr. Paul’s principle, which is not to “cut Yellowstone” or “rip out the Interstates.” It’s to KEEP them in the hands of the American people.
What liberals do not seem to understand, despite all of the obvious signs as the Bush Administration begins declaring dictatorial police-state power and waging undeclared war, is this:
The government isn’t funding the highways and parks so it can provide them for you. It’s funding it so that it can control it.
Ask anyone who’s ever been beaten or arrested by federal cops when festivals take place in national parks. Or look into the Security and Prosperity Partnership they’re working on, and the highway they plan to build for that.
If the government doesn’t protect us from corrupt corporations. The government does the plundering for them and hands them the profits.
Ron Paul votes against funding programs like these because the government’s only business should be protecting freedom. When problems arise with polluters, land-grabbers, and the like, it should be dealt with by state governments.
Adam’s another one of these “A highway is going to take away our sovereignty” types.
Look into the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, indeed. It’s a simple venue for diplomatic discussion, not what the Ron Paul zombies say it is:
SPP.gov. Don’t read the Ron Paul conspiracy theory nonsense. Look at the site itself.
Climb off the high horse, you have failed to find weapons of mass destruction.
“We need a President who is capable of a broader vision of America, one that acknowledges the importance of preserving tangible connections to America’s history.”????
Excuse me: THERE IS NOTHING BROADER THAN THE CONSTITUTION!
The Constitution does not provide for federal parks on state land– particularly under federal jurisdiction; ths can only be done by a state convention of popular vote.
This is just another example of how the federal government is the judge of it own powers– i.e. unlimited.
“The Constitution does not provide for federal parks on state land– particularly under federal jurisdiction; ths can only be done by a state convention of popular vote.”
Where does the Constitution say that?
Also, Adam:
The (federal) government’s only business, should be what’s listed in the Constitution: no more, no less.
However when the federal government becomes a national government, then it becomes the supreme interpreter of the Constitution– and hence can do whatever it pleases, as long as all 3 branches concur.
Clearly, that’s absurd: a Constitution can’t “limit” the same body which interprets it!
The individual states were originally supposed to provide recourse against federal abuses and usurpations of the Constitutions, by refusing to go along with them: you see, originally the federal government had no right to use force against a state’s popular majority. Since Lincoln changed all that, however, the federal government has done pretty much whatever it pleased, since none dare stand in its way; as long as the majority of congressional constituents doesn’t greatly oppose it, it will probably pass. The Constitution is a useless token-relic from the past– it has been a has-been for over 140 years.
“Where does the Constitution say that?”
Article IV, section 3, clause 2:
“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; “but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
Likewise, Amendment X:
“The 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.”
Clearly, the National Parks system construes the Constitution to prejudice the claims of State land, which does not belong to the United States, or state governments; therefore, these cannot unilaterally cede state land to the federal government, since the land belongs to the People of the state– not their delegates.
Again, the Constitution doesn’t list the powers of the states– only those delegated to the federal government by the People of the states, by consent of which all governments derive their just powers.
#1. National Parks aren’t new states, so I don’t see where Article IV comes in.
#2. One of the powers delegated to the Congress is the power to promote the general welfare, which the Supreme Court has clearly ruled over and over again gives the Congress the power to do things to promote the general welfare, and that could include creating national parks so long as it could be reasonably argued that the establishment national parks promote the general welfare. There are a lot of reasonable arguments about the relationship of national parks to the general welfare. I’ll say what I’ve said to others about Amendment X and the General Welfare: take it to the Supreme Court, pal.
Do you have a source on who owns national park land? I’m ignorant on that score generally, although I know specifically about a few of the national parks, and the ones I’m aware of are NOT on state-owned land.
The General Welfare Clause is not a power. It is a summary of those powers which are then followed with specifics.
If that were the case why then would James Madison say this, “Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made.” (James Madison)
Since Madison is the “Father” of the Constitution, he is the author of the Constitution’s original intent.
Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say,
“Our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. (Thomas Jefferson)
This should explain why National Parks are unconstitutional.
http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm
Thanks for sharing Madison’s writing. The Supreme Court has adopted Alexander Hamilton’s, not James Madison’s, view of the general welfare.
The supreme court represents the most powerful special interests, Decisions on issues of common good rarely are taken up by them and, once again, Hamilton was shot dead for his un-american views.
I’m thinking the illegal election of 1860 was the scene of a coup d’etat, prepared for since the time of the revolution, by a branch of international organized crime working for king george. They gave him most of what he wanted in the treaty of ghent and kept control of the government as payment for their services… they’re still in power 150 years later.
As for National Parks being unconstitutional let me say this. 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.
And the others make a point, not even the founders had one definition of General Welfare. George Washington wanted agriculture included in the scope of General Welfare. James Madison was not the only man who helped write and was certainly not the only man who signed the constitution. Nevertheless he does mention the things above.
People always say the views of the Founders (plural), James Madison was just one of the founders, but he did mention the things above.
Article 1 section 8 clause 17 specifically states that the government may not own land for any other purpose outsite of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings. The purpose of the Constitution is to prevent tyranny. The tyranny that the founders came from in England is very much the same as it is today. Everything is owned by the crown. The purpose of this particular clause is to prevent the people from eventually becoming beholden to a central government, and thereby becoming servants to it, by way of governmental ownership of all property.
Since this flood gate has been opened, the Fed has seized mineral rights, surface rights, private property, mineral royalties. There is a method to the madness… The areas that are taken are the ones that have the highest concentrations of resources, (i.e. timber, oil, gas, coal, gold, uranium, water, agricultural land, and the like). Don’t take my word for it… look at a bloody map.
National parks are unconstitutional and it’s not really even debatable. I think you need to take a course in natural law and maybe read a few books on the Constitution to really understand why they voted against the bill. Congress has 18 specific, enumerated powers in the Constitution. You can find nowhere in these powers anything resembling the authority to set aside any piece of land as a federally controlled park. Of course the liberals will twist the “no” vote into saying those who vote no are against this being a historical landmark, they don’t appreciate it’s history, or they don’t want money spent on it. You need to understand when someone enters Congress they take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They cannot pass laws based on positivist theory whatever the political flavor of the month is. Frankly I commend Paul and anyone else voting no for sticking by their principles. Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Canyon are all magical places but they should have been made state parks and not national parks. The fact most poor people paying federal taxes to support these parks who will never have a chance to visit them should appall most people from a morale perspective.
John, I think you need to take a course in simple logic. You’re engaged in a debate about whether national parks are constitutional, and at the same time telling everyone that the issue is not debatable.