Was John Quincy Adams A "Founding Father"??

Untrue LJ. That might be said of you as I have shown clear and unambiguous, read not in need of interpretation as to what is being said, language contained in Federalist 45 that the states shall retain numerous and indefinite powers to address the ordinary lives, liberty and property of the citizens of those states. That is all but written in stone and still you reject it. I have referenced Federalist 39 which just as clearly states that the the Constitution will not, if adopted, create a single aggregate nation ruled by a single government. That its powers, if adopted, will be national in operation of its powers only, not in the extent of its power. And still you reject it.

I have asked for, and have yet to receive, a similar instance where it is argued by any of the founding generation which advocated for the adoption of the Constitution forwarded the argument that the government created by the adoption of the Constitution will be without any limits to its authority and power over the everyday domestic concerns of the citizens that reside in the states which belong to the union - a statement which would be in direct opposition to the quoted statement from Federalist 45.

Dog's example requires interpretation because it does not directly state that the proposed government, and not the state government, will have numerous and indefinite powers over the lives, liberty and property of the citizens that reside in the states. His example does advance the notion that the federal government will have powers over the common defense and general welfare of the union of states that is not specifically enumerated, but not that this is inclusive of the individual welfare of each and every citizen that reside in the states that belong to the union. I am looking for something as clear and as concise as what I have provided that comes not from the 20th or 21st centuries when consolidation via interpretation was in full swing, but from the very pen of the founders.

Hey, PS, "Federalist 45" is NOT the "Law of the Land"... The Constitution, with ALL its Amendments is... You should try accepting that sometime. Because as for the rest of the minutiae that you continually regurgitate, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

The "interpretation" has already taken place...It's called the Supreme Court... And whether you like all their decisions or not, that is the law we live under....

:Snooze

Something the Dog Said wrote: Actually it that states that Congress has the power to do pretty much what it desires as long as it deems it to be within the General Welfare, such as imposing an individual mandate to possess health insurance. You can keep up with your straw man arguments to keep shifting focus, but it is what it is.

That is an interpretation of what was said Dog, not a direct statement. Common defense and general welfare of the union according to the language of the Constitution, not the individual citizen of one of the states. Not even Hamilton's own words go that far, do they. Nowhere does he contradict the sentiment expressed in Federalist 45 that the states shall retain numerous and indefinite powers over the everyday lives, liberty and property of the citizens. There is simply no there there Dog - unless you interpret his words to be inclusive of that power - which requires interpretation of the words instead of relying solely on the words themselves as I have.

I don't want your interpretation of what Hamilton said Dog, nor do I want to have you rely on my interpretation of what he said. What I am seeking is a direct statement that contradicts the one contained in Federalist 45 which states, without any interpretation necessary at all on the part of either one of us, that if the Constitution is adopted the states will retain for themselves numerous and indefinite powers over the lives, liberties and property of the citizens that reside in that state.

You're quoting an essay published under a fake name? Really?

Since when did this essay usurp the Constitution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._45

LadyJazzer wrote: Hey, PS, "Federalist 45" is NOT the "Law of the Land"... The Constitution, with ALL its Amendments is... You should try accepting that sometime. Because as for the rest of the minutiae that you continually regurgitate, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

The "interpretation" has already taken place...It's called the Supreme Court... And whether you like all their decisions or not, that is the law we live under....

:Snooze

And nowhere contained in the Constitution or its amendments is the provision that delegates the powers that the states retained over the everyday lives, liberties and property of its citizens to a national entity. Nowhere is that provision contained. Unless, as noted earlier, you rest your head on your left shoulder and squint so hard that what the Constitution actually does state is blurred to the point it can encompass that interpretation.

That is precisely what the justices appointed by FDR, who had no regard for stare decisis, judicial consistency or judicial restraint did. FDR packed the court with justices who would uphold his ideology - and the court has been polluted by every other president since then along the same lines. The rule of law has been replaced by the rule of ideology. Whichever ideology has more people sitting on the bench at any point in time is the ideology that decides what the law is. That, not surprisingly, is the tyranny of the majority democracy hoped for by the self named progressives for the last century that has brought us to the brink of ruin.

And yes - the last paragraph is indeed my opinion. The first paragraph, however, is simply reality as it exists.

You mean as in this part of the article?

The turning point in Supreme Court jurisprudence on the subject is widely seen as United States v. Butler (1936). Although that decision struck down provisions within the Agricultural Adjustment Act as violating the Tenth Amendment, the court found that

...the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.
—Justice Owen Roberts (1936)[4]

This represented the first time the Supreme court had determined whether the Taxing and Spending Clause of the Constitution represented an independent grant of power to provide for the general welfare of the United States.[4] They found it did, thus setting the stage for massive increases in federal spending, and consequent power, during the latter half of the 20th century.

Wow... It's a good thing that Federalist-45 is NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND, isn't it?

WayneH wrote: God, you're boring.

WayneH wrote: You're quoting an essay published under a fake name? Really?

Since when did this essay usurp the Constitution?

How do you go from an explanation of the scope of the proposed Constitution to the citizens of New York by one of the chief authors of the document to an usurpation of the Constitution Wayne? That's quite a feat and I'd like to know your reasoning behind it.

LadyJazzer wrote: You mean as in this part of the article?

The turning point in Supreme Court jurisprudence on the subject is widely seen as United States v. Butler (1936). Although that decision struck down provisions within the Agricultural Adjustment Act as violating the Tenth Amendment, the court found that

...the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.
—Justice Owen Roberts (1936)[4]

This represented the first time the Supreme court had determined whether the Taxing and Spending Clause of the Constitution represented an independent grant of power to provide for the general welfare of the United States.[4] They found it did, thus setting the stage for massive increases in federal spending, and consequent power, during the latter half of the 20th century.

Wow... It's a good thing that Federalist-45 is NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND, isn't it?

I'd be particularly interested on your thoughts regarding a section of the ruling LJ - especially in light of the current battle over Obamacare:

(8) Congress cannot invade state jurisdiction by purchasing the action of individuals any more than by compelling it. P. 297 U. S. 73.

I'd also like to know why, in light of this decision, the packed court of FDR in 1940 found it constitutionally acceptable to tell a farmer what he could or could not grow:

(2) Regulation and control of agricultural production are beyond the powers delegated to the Federal Government. P. 297 U. S. 68.