The General Welfare Clause: An Anti-Federalists Warning about Hamiltonian Republicanism

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 states: The Congress shall have 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; This Clause is known as the taxing and spending clause and is used repeatedly by both parties to justify just about everything they spend our hard earned money on. What did our Founding Father's say about it? Has it's purpose or meaning been perverted? Even during our Founder's ratification debates this clause brought two very different sets of ideas to argue. Did the Anti-Federalists (those who supported a Bill of Rights to be attached to the Constitution) warn our nation? . Richard Henry Lee who wrote as the Federal Farmer said "to lay and collect internal taxes, in this extensive country, must require a great number of congressional ordinances, immediately operating upon the body of the peoples; these must continually interfere with the state laws, and thereby produce disorder and general dissatisfaction, till the one system of laws or the other, operating upon the same subjects, shall be abolished...Further, as to internal taxes, the state governments will have concurrent powers with the general government, and both may tax the same objects in the same year;and the objection that the general government may suspend a state tax, as a necessary measure for the promoting the collection of a federal tax, is not without foundation." Brutus in Anti-Federalists No. 5 writes: "To detail the particulars comprehended in the general terms, taxes, duties, imposts and excises, would require a volume, instead of a single piece in a news-paper. Indeed it would be a task far beyond my ability, and to which no one can be competent, unless possessed of a mind capable of comprehending every possible source of revenue; for they extend to every possible way of raising money, whether by direct or indirect taxation. Under this clause may be imposed a poll-tax, a land-tax, a tax on houses and buildings, on windows and fire places, on cattle and on all kinds of personal property: — It extends to duties on all kinds of goods to any amount, to tonnage and poundage on vessels, to duties on written instruments, newspapers, almanacks, and books: — It comprehends an excise on all kinds of liquors, spirits, wines, cyder, beer, etc. and indeed takes in duty or excise on every necessary or conveniency of life; whether of foreign or home growth or manufactory. In short, we can have no conception of any way in which a government can raise money from the people, but what is included in one or other of three general terms. We may say then that this clause commits to the hands of the general legislature every conceivable source of revenue within the United States. Not only are these terms very comprehensive, and extend to a vast number of objects, but the power to lay and collect has great latitude; it will lead to the passing a vast number of laws, which may affect the personal rights of the citizens of the states, expose their property to fines and confiscation, and put their lives in jeopardy: it opens a door to the appointment of a swarm of revenue and excise officers to pray [sic] upon the honest and industrious part of the community, eat up their substance, and riot on the spoils of the country. We will next enquire into what is implied in the authority to pass all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry this power into execution. It is, perhaps, utterly impossible fully to define this power. The authority granted in the first clause can only be understood in its full extent, by descending to all the particular cases in which a revenue can be raised; the number and variety of these cases are so endless, and as it were infinite, that no man living has, as yet, been able to reckon them up. The greatest geniuses in the world have been for ages employed in the research, and when mankind had supposed that the subject was exhausted they have been astonished with the refined improvements that have been made in modem times, and especially in the English nation on the subject — If then the objects of this power cannot be comprehended, how is it possible to understand the extent of that power which can pass all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying it into execution? It is truly incomprehensible. A case cannot be conceived of, which is not included in this power. It is well known that the subject of revenue is the most difficult and extensive in the science of government. It requires the greatest talents of a statesman, and the most numerous and exact provisions of the legislature. The command of the revenues of a state gives the command of every thing in it. — He that has the purse will have the sword, and they that have both, have every thing; so that the legislature having every source from which money can be drawn under their direction, with a right to make all laws necessary and proper for drawing forth all the resource of the country, would have, in fact, all power. Were I to enter into the detail, it would be easy to shew how this power in its operation, would totally destroy all the powers of the individual states. But this is not necessary for those who will think for themselves, and it will be useless to such as take things upon trust, nothing will awaken them to reflection, until the iron hand of oppression compel them to it." William Symmes Jr. stated that the term general welfare might be applied to any expenditure whatever instead of just the enumerated powers of congress. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter in June of 1817: "You will have learned that an act for internal improvement, after passing both houses, was negatived by the President. The act was founded, avowedly, on the principle that the phrase in the constitution, which authorizes Congress 'to lay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare,' was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, you know, was the federal doctrine. Whereas, our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only land-mark which now divides the federalists* from the republicans, that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been 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." Patrick Henry who first started demanding taxation be done only at the local level in 1765 said this in the Stamp Act: "Resolved, therefore, That the General Assembly of this Colony, together with his Majesty or his Substitutes, have, in their Representative Capacity, the only exclusive Right and Power to lay Taxes and Imposts upon the Inhabitants of this Colony: And that every Attempt to vest such Power in any other Person or Persons whatever, than the General Assembly aforesaid, is illegal, unconstitutional and unjust, and have a manifest Tendency to destroy British as well as American Liberty." It is clear while reading through these quotes from these Founding Fathers that they were worried about this clause being to vague and that at some future point in America that the general government would abuse it for their own purposes instead of defense of the States. Some even went so far as to try to have this clause removed from the Constitution before ratification. Time has only shown these Patriots to be correct in that congress would trample States' Rights through taxation and other means by declaring that this clause makes it constitutional.

The Purpose of Gun Control

Gun control is a subject that almost everyone has an opinion on. Those on the left and even some on the right argue its about safety and security . Some on the right argue that gun control in some forms is ok while libertarians, in keeping with the idea of limited government, for the most part argue that any form of gun control is prohibited by the simple phrase "shall not be infringed upon". As such arguments still exist, there are three questions that will be answered.

Is it really about the guns? Those that support gun control show statistical data of how many times guns are used in crimes but not how often used in self-defense. According to Gary Kleck (a criminologist at Florida State University) guns are used 2 to 2.5 million times a year in self-defense while the BoJ recorded(in 1993) 1.3 million times that guns were used to help in the commission of a crime. This means that guns are used at least twice as often for defense rather than in crime. Another thing the pro gun control crowd leaves out is the total amount of crimes committed. In the same year that these studies took place, there were over 43 million crimes in the US. So if these numbers have held true (violent crime rates have dropped since 1993 according to the FBI) then why are guns being targeted? Guns are targeted because its easier to control the numbers of firearms rather then knives. Most knives you can buy with a simple id and no proof of a clean criminal record. Guns on the other hand have serial numbers that make them easier to track thus the reason these anti gun groups demand registration. These same groups say only police and military personal should have guns. The whole reason for this is its easier to control people who do not have the capacity to defend themselves.

The second question is what really happens when gun control laws are enacted? Is society more peaceful? Does the crime rate, especially violent crime, go down? Many that favor gun control bring up Japan. Japan however, is a much different society. The Japanese have no 4th or 5th amendments. This means that their police are allowed to enter your property and search it to find anything illegal. Most Americans would find this a gross violation as did the founding fathers. On the other side of the argument there is Switzerland.The Swiss have a low gun crime rate as well but they differ from the Japanese by having all males keep their assault weapons and military equipment in their homes as opposed to an armoury. Australia and the United Kingdom both have strict gun control laws as well and yet have seen an increase in the violent crime rate. With many States in the US now passing concealed carry laws, the violent crime rate has been and continues to drop.

Why should a free society be an armed society? Does it make citizens safer or does it make it easier to be a criminal? The main purpose to allow citizens the Right of keeping and bearing arms is defense.The Right to life that is inalienable to humans as written in the Declaration of Independence logically extends us the Right to defend that life. Through this reasoning, one should not be prohibited from using the most effective tool. An armed society creates an issue for those willing to harm their neighbors for they usually do not want to put their own lives in jeopardy. When governments order citizens to turn in firearms, they disarm the law-abiding citizen and turn him into a serf. The criminals on the other hand gain the advantage when citizens are disarmed because they will not turn in their weapons as they aren't concerned with laws to begin with. A freeman should always be able to defend his life and property, whether its from a single criminal or an abusive government.

Fascism in America

Fascism, it can't happen here! So many people from both the republican and democratic parties claim, even some that have studied political history.This ideology is often misunderstood and used so frequently it has no meaning today. So what is it? What does it require? Is it unique only to one form of government or is it found in both parties? If it is found in both parties,how is it enacted?

Fascism is an ideology that believes in forcing an individual to submit to the leader's will or a party's control. It usually starts off as a populist movement with collectivists ideas. Examples would be the communist revolutions in China and Russia (and a few other nations), the National Socialist Workers Party in Germany and the Progressive movement in the United States.The intended result of the leaders of these movements is a totalitarian government. Fascism also entails the merging of corporate and governmental powers.

So what does fascism require? It requires a few things in order to be implemented. The first is a charismatic leader. A second prerequisite is a national crisis which could happen in various forms like hyperinflation (economic) or massive civil disturbances. A crisis enables the leader to prey on humans craving for stability. By restoring this stability, most people no longer question or think about the policies enacted. This apathy only furthers the agenda. Those that do question are quickly discredited or deemed enemies of the nation. In Nazi Germany, the few Christian ministers that spoke out were eliminated. This policy of eliminating unwanted people is more easily done during a massive civil disturbance and are perpetrated by some type of a national police organization. These silinced minorities creates an environment of fear that only enables the leader/party to keep their will or agenda going.

Fascism is not unique to any one form of government. In Germany, they had a republican form of government while Russia and Italy had monarchies. The US is a republic with some of the various states being more democratic then republican. It can be found much easier then people admit.

Can it be found in the US in todays political scene? The answer is in the affirmative. Both of the mainstream parties are guilty of implementing fascist laws and regulations. With Congress seceding power to the executive branch, it makes this happen at a faster pace. At the same time though, congress is passing laws that either limits or directly prohibits the exercising of your political rights. Examples are the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, the tresspassing bill, and CISPA to name a few. These laws are fundamentally unconstitutional and downright treasonous.

Some of these laws create organizations not authorized by the Constitution and are used by the executive branch to bypass the Constitution all together. Such as the FDA raiding farms to confiscate raw milk or the DEA and ATF in imposing restrictions on certain chemicals and guns a person can obtain. At the same time you have the EPA restricting coal power. The DHS, with the claim its fighting terrorism, instead spends considerable resources spying on American citizens.

America,  a nation no longer free as the founding fathers intended, has bought into the false claim that fascism can not happen here. This apathy will be a death sentence for the people and economy of a once free and prosperous nation. The chains of tyranny have bound the people and those that will not resist deserves the chains that set upon them.

Shared Sacrifice?

Have you heard? We're all supposed to sacrifice for the good of the nation, at least that's what some politicians say. The reason for their saying we need to share in the sacrifice is the state of our ailing economy. There are some major problems with those that say we need to share in the sacrifice.

The first problem is what type of sacrifice is not always clear. The individual usually explains its because of the economy and never really gets into specifics. This lack of detail enables the politicians to make the claim that they are sacrificing as well.

The second problem is that politicians are passing laws throughout the country prohibiting Americans from helping the needy. One such city is New York, which has banned food donations because the city can't monitor salt levels. This then forces people who would be helped by various charities to become dependent on government. This has a direct effect on debt in that it makes the city to need even more money. They have also passed laws prohibiting vegetable gardens which creates more demand for commercial farm products.

The third problem is that these same politicians expect us to do the sacrificing and not them. While Americans continue to deal with an economy that isn't producing enough jobs and falling incomes, the political elite continue to profit at the expense of the people. With an average income of $174,000, our house and senate members don't seem to mind telling us to sacrifice. 

How do we get them to help in this 'shared sacrifice'? For starters we could make it so every year the budget is not balanced, they do not receive pay. Another way is we could make it that the only way they get pay raises is if they can get us to vote yes by putting it on the ballot.  The third way is to limit their pay to that of the average American salary.

These problems can be fixed. By allowing liberty to flourish, our nations prosperity will come back. The individualist is what has always made this country great, not these collectivism ideas. Remember, forced charity is not real charity.

A Libertarian Government

What might a libertarian run country look like? After two centuries of two party rule, we know for certain what the republican and democratic parties have in store for our nation. Many argue that one or the other is wrong but few seem to ask what if both are wrong and disastrous for our nation? Both parties claim to follow the Constitution and yet each year we have even more laws and more regulations.

What would happen if a libertarian became president and the libertarians got control of congress? Would liberty really flourish? I would argue that Thomas Jefferson gave us an example of what a libertarian government would be like in 1801 when he became president. When Jefferson ran for President, the Federalist party claimed that there would be nothing but chaos in the streets and foreign armies would invade. The same has been said about two libertarians currently running for president, Gary Johnson and Ron Paul. Jefferson's presidency however, showed that this was not the case.

What could we expect from a Ron Paul or Gary Johnson presidency? We could expect certain government agencies being deleted from the federal budget as well as our troops being brought home. We could also expect an end to the 40 year failed drug war. We could also be certain that the surplus money from ending the drug war and eliminating various departments would go towards paying our national debt down. But what about our national security you may ask or wonder. The Republican establishment claims that these two men would destroy our nations ability to defend itself.This is a falsehood promoted by corporate media. Ron Paul's plan would indeed shrink the defense budget, but only by eliminating the wasteful use of our resources by bringing our troops home, and securing our own borders. Gary Johnson's plan would end the war in Afghanistan and bring our troops home. He would also stop the nation building that's going on.

The most important issue to most Americans this election is the economy. With Romney and Obama both saying that the economic recovery has started, millions of Americans are still unemployed or underemployed today. Both Romney and Obama have their own ideas, but both receive huge campaign donations from big banks and corporations. Why one must ask did these companies who claimed they were broke were able then to make these huge contributions? The answer is pretty easy, its because these two men are willing to sell their allegiance to the highest bidder.

What would Paul and Johnson do for our economic mess that we are still in? Both would lower taxes and try to keep the government out of our lives as much as possible.  By doing so they acknowledge that we do in fact own ourselves. By deregulating many sectors, it will in turn enable more competition and force these big corporations to not depend on bribed politicians. It would make starting business' easier and thus create more jobs. We could then compete once again in the global economy.

What if libertarians controlled congress?  If libertarians controlled congress,  I could see many laws and acts being repealed.  For example,  the NDAA and the Patriot Act. Corporations would no longer be subsidized or receive bailouts. States that overspend their budgets might finally make some real improvement by knowing they won't get those bailouts either and we the people would have more income to use as we need as a result of little or no income tax on individuals. This extra income would further boost our economy and raise our standard of living.

Does this sound like a situation you would enjoy? Could this even be possible with how entrenched the two party system is? One thing is for sure, we are individuals who can make a difference through our actions and dedication. May our nation once again be the land of the free.

What if...

What if the Constitution was enforced? What if agencies like the TSA and DHS didn't exist? What if the government understood the notion that we own ourselves? What if the government respected the market? What if the US dollar was worth something? What if the federal reserve was regulated as a normal bank? What if the united States was once again the beacon of liberty? What if the united States could return to its former splendor? What if people started waking up to the cronyism running rampant? What if people started defending the Constitution?