Was John Quincy Adams A "Founding Father"??

The Federalist Papers were simply a series of letters to the editor under pseudonyms published in a New York newspapers and have no legal significance. I get that you are attempting to argue that one of those op eds have constitutional significance but they do not. The Federalist v. Anti-Federalist argument has some historical significance, but no legal basis. The Hamilton v. Jeffersonian viewpoints were well known, but history has declared Hamilton the winner with Congress have wide ranging powers under the General Welfare clause, the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper clauses.

If you are looking for exact wording from Hamilton that expresses his viewpoint of this, there are certainly historical tomes that will provide this information, but to spend the time simply to rebut your continually shifting straw man arguments that have been constantly exposed as false for several years now is time that can be better spent elsewhere. Look to his arguments for the setting up the Bank of the United States, the National mint and particularly his Report on Manufactures and other federal powers that were not enumerated in the Constitution.

Perhaps you could prove your viewpoint, please provide me with wording that Hamilton was opposed to a strong federal government? Hmm?

PrintSmith wrote: 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.

Which, of course, is a lie and misinformation...

Farmers are not TOLD that they CAN'T grow crops... They are allowed to VOLUNTARILY enroll, and if they meet certain conditions, they are PAID not to grow certain crops, which was an effort to save over-farmed land and nature habitat... But congratulations on your continuing effort to distort the truth...

The CRP costs taxpayers almost $2 billion a year — this year, that amounts to about 8 percent of all farm subsidies. Congress established the program in 1985. [Hmmmmm, who was president in 1985? Why, it was Ronnie Raygun!] It's the oldest and largest of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's efforts to protect soil, water and wildlife in farming areas.

The program's goals have shifted over the years. "The CRP started out as an erosion-control program. It's evolved into a wildlife and water-quality program," says Robert Harkrader, a district conservationist with the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service in Coffee County, Kan.

Farmers offer to enroll their land in the CRP. It has to be land where crops previously grew. If the USDA accepts the offer, the farmer gets paid a fee, roughly equivalent to the rental value of the land, to stop growing crops on it. The USDA gives priority to land where halting cultivation offers environmental benefits: Less erosion of soil, runoff into streams, or valuable habitat for wildlife.

Those BASTARDS!?!?!?! Paying farmers to voluntarily enroll their land!!! Hrrumph!

Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that an essay, written under a pseudonym, titled "Federalist-45" somehow trumps 230 years of settled law by the Supreme Court?!?!?!

Another good one that reminds me of ObamaCare:

(3) The tax, the appropriation of the funds raised, and the direction for their disbursement, are but parts of the plan -- the means to an unconstitutional end. P. 297 U. S. 68.

And we shouldn't overlook this gem either:

(4) The power of taxation, which is expressly granted to Congress, may be adopted as a means to carry into operation another power also expressly granted, but not to effectuate an end which is not within the scope of the Constitution. P. 297 U. S. 69.

This one is my personal favorite as it leaves no room for LJ to continue to hold the idea of her ideology that the powers of the federal government are without limits since it is a "settled matter of law" according to the Supreme Court.

(12) If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, that clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the States in the regulation of agriculture and of all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, sedulously framed to define and limit the power of the United States and preserve the powers of the States, could be broken down, the independence of the individual States obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the Union superseding all local control over local concerns. P. 297 U. S. 75.

All from the case and the decision you provided LJ. Thank you for helping me prove my point. It is not my opinion that the federal government's powers are strictly limited by the Constitution, it is the opinion of the man who largely wrote it and the opinion of the highest court in the land.

PrintSmith wrote:

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.

I hate to tell you this (actually I don't), but the oped in the New York newspaper certainly does not have the power of the Constitution but was merely an op ed that expressed the view point of one of the MANY authors of the Constitution who was battling for his views to be incorporated therein, against the opposing views of others of the Many authors of the Constitution.

Something the Dog Said wrote: The Federalist Papers were simply a series of letters to the editor under pseudonyms published in a New York newspapers and have no legal significance. I get that you are attempting to argue that one of those op eds have constitutional significance but they do not. The Federalist v. Anti-Federalist argument has some historical significance, but no legal basis. The Hamilton v. Jeffersonian viewpoints were well known, but history has declared Hamilton the winner with Congress have wide ranging powers under the General Welfare clause, the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper clauses.

What utter and complete nonsense. The Supreme Court regularly references the Federalist Papers as a point of support for the ruling that they are issuing. No legal significance my backside. History did not declare Hamilton the winner - the packed court of FDR interpreted their way into expanding even beyond the opinions Hamilton held as referenced in Federalist 85, where he said that an additional Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the default position for the federal government proposed by the Constitution was an absence of power:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

Something the Dog Said wrote: If you are looking for exact wording from Hamilton that expresses his viewpoint of this, there are certainly historical tomes that will provide this information, but to spend the time simply to rebut your continually shifting straw man arguments that have been constantly exposed as false for several years now is time that can be better spent elsewhere. Look to his arguments for the setting up the Bank of the United States, the National mint and particularly his Report on Manufactures and other federal powers that were not enumerated in the Constitution.

Perhaps you could prove your viewpoint, please provide me with wording that Hamilton was opposed to a strong federal government? Hmm?

I've provided you with his own words, expressed in Federalist 84, that the default position of the federal government was the absence of power not specifically granted. The packed court of FDR interpreted otherwise, and their abandoning of the principles of stare decisis, judicial consistency and judicial restraint have resulted in the interpretation we are stuck with today. How could a Supreme Court in 1940 say it was constitutionally allowed for the federal government to fine a man for growing wheat beyond what was allotted to him by the federal government when a 1932 decision stated quite clearly that the regulation and control of agricultural production was beyond the powers delegated to the Federal Government? Only by abandoning the Constitution, stare decisis and judicial consistency was such a decision even possible.

LadyJazzer wrote: Those BASTARDS!?!?!?! Paying farmers to voluntarily enroll their land!!! Hrrumph!

Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that an essay, written under a pseudonym, titled "Federalist-45" somehow trumps 230 years of settled law by the Supreme Court?!?!?!

The man who was fined and prosecuted by the government for growing more wheat for his personal consumption did not voluntarily enroll his land in the federal program LJ. It is obvious to all that you are not familiar with Wickard v Filburn where the Supreme Court ruled that a farmer had to destroy his crop and pay a fine for exceeding his federal allotment of acreage upon which he could grow the wheat despite the 1932 ruling that you referenced earlier which clearly stated "(2) Regulation and control of agricultural production are beyond the powers delegated to the Federal Government. P. 297 U. S. 68." Funny how you can interpret your ideology into nullifying, how did you phrase that again, "230 years of settled law by the Supreme Court" isn't it. It was indeed a settled matter that regulation and control of agricultural production was outside the scope of federal powers, but that didn't stop FDR and his merry cabal of Democrats in Congress, nor the court packed with partisans of his ideology, from interpreting their way into a new understanding of the settled law, now did it. Don't talk to me about 230 years of settled law when regressives have spent the last 100 of those years unsettling the settled law that was in existence for the prior 130 years.

Something the Dog Said wrote: I hate to tell you this (actually I don't), but the oped in the New York newspaper certainly does not have the power of the Constitution but was merely an op ed that expressed the view point of one of the MANY authors of the Constitution who was battling for his views to be incorporated therein, against the opposing views of others of the Many authors of the Constitution.

Those op-ed papers, as you refer to them, are regularly referenced by the Supreme Court for an understanding of the intent of the Constitution since they were written by the chief authors in the committee charged with putting to paper the agreed upon principles the Constitution created as decided by the delegates that attended the Philadelphia Convention. They are not the equivalent of the modern opinion articles you so often reference Dog, they carry much more significance than that.

Wow....Re: Wickard v. Filburn:

The issue was not how one characterized the activity as local, but rather whether the activity "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce":

Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production,' 'consumption,' or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'

Here, the regulation of local production of wheat was rationally related to Congress's goal: to stabilize prices by limiting the total supply of wheat produced and consumed. It was clear, the Court held,

"that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. ..... Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. This record leaves us in no doubt that Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices.

Yep... Congress had a vested interest and the stated purpose of the act was to stabilize the price of wheat in the national market by controlling the amount of wheat produced. The motivation behind the Act was a belief by Congress that great international fluctuations in the supply and demand for wheat were leading to wide swings in the price of wheat, which were deemed to be harmful to the U.S. agricultural economy.


Gee, trying to do something to stop harm to the U.S. agricultural economy so that EVERYONE would benefit instead of one person who decided he would be selfish and do what he wanted, and "screw everyone else." (Somehow that reminds me of something..... Oh yeah, the "compassionate conservatives" in the Republican Party...)

Is this the point where I'm supposed to shed a tear for "lost freedom"?

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: The Federalist Papers were simply a series of letters to the editor under pseudonyms published in a New York newspapers and have no legal significance. I get that you are attempting to argue that one of those op eds have constitutional significance but they do not. The Federalist v. Anti-Federalist argument has some historical significance, but no legal basis. The Hamilton v. Jeffersonian viewpoints were well known, but history has declared Hamilton the winner with Congress have wide ranging powers under the General Welfare clause, the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper clauses.

What utter and complete nonsense. The Supreme Court regularly references the Federalist Papers as a point of support for the ruling that they are issuing. No legal significance my backside. History did not declare Hamilton the winner - the packed court of FDR interpreted their way into expanding even beyond the opinions Hamilton held as referenced in Federalist 85, where he said that an additional Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the default position for the federal government proposed by the Constitution was an absence of power:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

Something the Dog Said wrote: If you are looking for exact wording from Hamilton that expresses his viewpoint of this, there are certainly historical tomes that will provide this information, but to spend the time simply to rebut your continually shifting straw man arguments that have been constantly exposed as false for several years now is time that can be better spent elsewhere. Look to his arguments for the setting up the Bank of the United States, the National mint and particularly his Report on Manufactures and other federal powers that were not enumerated in the Constitution.

Perhaps you could prove your viewpoint, please provide me with wording that Hamilton was opposed to a strong federal government? Hmm?

I've provided you with his own words, expressed in Federalist 84, that the default position of the federal government was the absence of power not specifically granted. The packed court of FDR interpreted otherwise, and their abandoning of the principles of stare decisis, judicial consistency and judicial restraint have resulted in the interpretation we are stuck with today. How could a Supreme Court in 1940 say it was constitutionally allowed for the federal government to fine a man for growing wheat beyond what was allotted to him by the federal government when a 1932 decision stated quite clearly that the regulation and control of agricultural production was beyond the powers delegated to the Federal Government? Only by abandoning the Constitution, stare decisis and judicial consistency was such a decision even possible.

Once again the Federalists Papers have no legal significance, merely historical, which if you read the actual decisions citing them is how they are used. And Hamilton was the winner back in 1819 when the Supreme Court found that Congress did have powers well beyond those enumerated in the Constitution in the McCuloch v. Maryland. And your understanding of Federalist 84 is so wrong it is laughable. In Federalist 84, Hamilton is expressing his viewpoint that the Bill of Rights should not be in the Constitution, that providing those individual rights was dangerous. As to whether or not the Supreme Court abandoned the principles of Federalist 84 is ridiculous as it has no application. Beginning with the McCulloch decision, and continuing through the Gibbons decision and on, the Supreme Court has upheld the principle of federalism.

You constantly blame the ills of the world on FDR court packing the Supreme Court. Once again, I have to correct you. The Judicial Procedures Act that FDR pushed to expand the Supreme Court so he could "pack" it was never, I repeat, never enacted. It failed. It never happened. It is yet one more conservative myth. FDR did get justices favorable to his agenda on the Supreme Court, but that was through his 12 years in office and the relatively short life span during the 30's and 40's.

In regard to the Wickard case, previously the Supreme Court had held that agriculture was an intrastate act not affecting interstate commerce. Clearly that is incorrect as most agriculture products or products that contain agriculture products are sold in interstate commerce and affect interstate commerce. The relevant decision is actually NRLB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. which expanded the definition of commerce in 1937 (prior to FDR getting his justices on the Court), not the Wickard case.

If you want to return to "original intent" b.s., perhaps you can convince 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the States to invalidate the 230 years of Court decisions since 1789...? Perhaps that would be a full-time job? Perhaps then we wouldn't have to listen to your pre-recorded silliness about things that have no legal weight?