It just might be the worst endorsement ever. Seventeen top economists were asked who would be better for the economy: Romney or Obama. It was clearly viewed as a question of the lesser of two evils by the economists. Nine out of 17 economists selected Romney but Bill Watkins, executive director of the Center for Economic Research and Forecasting at Cal Lutheran University, selected Romney with the world’s best example of damning with faint praise: “Romney’s policies would likely be less bad for the economy than Obama’s.” Like five others, Gary Rosenberger of EconoPlay, simply refused to “pick your poison” between the two men.
I love “polls” with just 17 individuals with at least five refusing to give you an answer.
Of course, Obama did fare worse with the economists but the survey shows that economists, like many Americans, do not see a strong choice between the two men. The result of a monopoly is often less choice and that goes for business or for politics when only two parties control the nation.
Source: CNN
That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it, but that doesn’t change the fact that you’re simply wrong in your legal interpretation, Bron. Personally I’ll stick with Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) being the primary cause of our current dismal state as a nation. It may be the law, but it is wrong headed and a piss poor decision. However, my loathing of that case is based upon something entirely different from your Madisonian view of the General Welfare Clause. Your take on that stems from what was once a legitimate disagreement in the law over language that was eventually decided in favor of Hamilton. The original dispute, however and regardless of how it was ultimately decided, was legitimate. In Buckley, the Court made an egregious definitional error by falsely equating money to free speech, i.e. they pulled their decision out of their ass to get the answer they wanted instead using even common sense. The same can be said of Citizens United. The Court did the same thing regarding corporate personality. They applied bad logic (in both Buckley and CU examples of outcome determinism) to get an answer they wanted but that is not even remotely supported by basic definitions let alone common sense. The same cannot be said of Butler and Helvering. Those cases are both iron locked tight in their logic and legal reasoning.
Gene H:
And Hamilton is why we are messed up. You mercantilist, you.
Bron,
Yeah, I did, Button Boy.
Also, you’re showing exactly why I can validly appeal to my authority in the matter of law as I am actually an expert on the subject matter when you desperately go to the Articles of Confederation as your rational. See, there are these concepts in law called precedent and stare decisis. They’re kind of important in understanding how to interpret laws.
I’m going to explain this to you (again).
The ability of the Federal government to spend money on social programs comes from the Taxing and Spending clause and subsequent jurisprudence. Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1 say “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”. Until 1936, there was basically a division of opinion over what “general welfare” meant. Some took the narrow view of Madison (like you), some took the broader view of Hamiliton (like me), but the narrow view largely held sway until the case of United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936). Butler challenged the validity of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. The Court struck down the Act, but in doing so they also addresses the issue of the narrow versus the expansive interpretation of the General Welfare Clause. The Court held:
“The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results 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.” 297 U.S. 65-66.
This comports with the Hamiltionian/Jeffersonian construction of the clause Justice Story made in is 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States where he concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power, but a qualification on the taxing power which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government. This view was expanded upon in Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937) which held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare, and did not contravene the 10th Amendment and requiring only that welfare spending be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose. [emphasis added for the hard of understanding]
More recently in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), the Court held that Congress possessed the (plenary) power to indirectly influence the states into adopting national standards by withholding, to a limited extent, federal funds. These penalties used to influence state compliance with Federal law must meet four criteria:
1. The condition must be unambiguous;
2. The condition must promote “the general welfare”;
3. The condition should relate “to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs”; and
4. The condition must conform to the Tenth Amendment reservation of powers to the states.
The Hamiltonian expansive interpretation of the general welfare clause dominates the jurisprudence. It’s the law whether you like it or not, Bron. You’re simply wrong. This is what happens when an amateur layman tries to cherry pick data to rationalize an interpretation of the law to conform to his ideology instead of understanding what the law actually says and is as properly understood in the context of precedent and jurisprudence.
As to your claim I was fallaciously appealing to my own authority? It’s not a fallacy to appeal to your own authority in this context. I am an expert on the subject matter as this answer and the diploma on my wall testify. The fallacy of appeal to authority occurs when an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it. I did not appeal to my authority to make my case, but rather I appealed to my authority as to whom I’d trust more to have a valid answer on a legal technical question: me (J.D.) or you (B.S.E.?). My case is based upon the Constitution and the subsequent precedent(s). It stands on its own as truthful.
Your claim is illegitimate and wrong as a matter of law.
Deal with it.
Despite repub obstructionism, 4.5 plus million jobs srreated, auto industry back, housing rebounded, stock market up,kept us out of depression and , though I have seen arguments against, recession over, yep could be better but economy is recovering. Don;t know who the economists are either (as has been said) and CNN does not always seem fair and balanced but I doubt mmost economists would think Romney plan better, unless you want destruction of social nets, and then of corse we really don;t know Romney’s plan, as Ryan also said to Wallace “would take too much time to explain it”>
bettykath:
no, he didnt.
Anyway, there is a fallacy of appeal to authority. He is appealing to his own authority which hasnt been vetted. So I think I am making a legitimate claim.
I dont know about you, but I think Gene H is friggin smart [but he still cant appeal to his own authority] and when you poke him he always comes up with some good stuff to think about and research.
“A new poll gives President Obama the edge over Mitt Romney, with the president building a commanding lead among female voters.
In Quinnipiac’s latest survey, Obama beats Romney 49 percent to 45 percent among likely voters. That lead is built upon the 56 percent to 38 percent advantage that Obama has built among women. Romney has a 10-point lead among men, leading Obama 52 percent to 42 percent.” POLITICO I bet most of the economists surveyed were men.
Gene, I think you really hit Bron’s buttons.
Gene H:
“Article III. The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.”
This is where the general welfare clause originated, in the Articles of Confederation. The Federalist paper #41 General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution, James Madison, author, explains this as does a letter he wrote toward the end of his life.
The general welfare is about mutual protection in the event of hostilities, not about providing a chicken in every pot.
You also need to quit appealing to your own authority since there is no proof you went to law school or that you are/were a lawyer. When you provide documentation then you can appeal to your own authority, until such time you have no more claim than I have to understanding our Constitution and founding documents.
By the way I will need more than anecdotal testimony by your friends or relatives.
As far as I know you are just another smart guy with a couple of law books under his belt. Hell, I made an A in a political science course about the Constitution in college. But that doesnt mean squat and neither does you saying you have a JD. I havent seen your diploma.
Dave S:
So Gene H is a Nationalist according to this video. He wants a strong central government.
The republicans and the democrats are almost the same animal based on Di Lorenzo’s definition.
He probably is a big fan of Hamilton as well.
Gene H:
“but I know that the idea that government is necessary to both define and protect property rights is contrary to your idiotic Randian übermensch ideal.”
Yes, I am fully aware that government is necessary to protect my property rights, that is a legitimate function of government. You keep saying that I think government is unnecessary, I dont, I am all for a limited government.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DwDyDxgJuaDY&ei=MVBqUJKzEpOy0AHJ1oCQCQ&usg=AFQjCNHs1N01KkvpsL8Xj-zwxF2161ywSw
Here’s a good libertarian argument about the constitution.
oops posted too soon. Here’s an excerpt:
The Libertarian candidate for President has filed papers asserting that his exclusion from the debates violates The Sherman Antitrust Act. If the debate criteria were narrowed down to candidates who had a technical chance of winning, both Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein should be on stage. In the wake of Johnson’s lawsuit and pressure from nonprofits, some companies have withdrawn their support of the 2012 Presidential debates. (For ways you can help, see the readmore.)
(excerpt from) Politico
Philips pulls presidential debate sponsorship
by Dylan Byers 9/30/2012
Philips Electronics has dropped its sponsorship of the 2012 presidential debates, citing a desire not to associate itself with “partisan politics,” POLITICO has learned.
Philips is the third and by far the largest of the original ten sponsors to pull its support, following similar decisions by British advertising firm BBH New York and the YWCA over the last week…
“We respect all points of view and, as a result, want to ensure that Philips doesn’t provide even the slightest appearance of supporting partisan politics. As such, no company funds have been or will be used to support the Commission on Presidential Debates.”
Some good news:
http://www.onthewilderside.com/2012/10/01/companies-drop-sponsorship-of-2012-presidential-debates/
Yeah, raff, they hate it when the facts get in the way of their ideology.
Gene,
Once again those fact thingees can be a pain in the butt for conservatives.
Also, I will read the Constitution properly – as in based on the source materials, the writings of the Founders directly responsible for the document and the history of jurisprudence surrounding it – as I was trained to do and I’ll continue to do so with or without your approval. You’re an engineer who thinks Ayn Rand was correct. I think I’m perfectly content with my own counsel over yours on the issues surrounding Constitutional law.
“People dont want to live with their failures but they should embrace failure, its the only way to learn and advance in your personal life, as a culture. Your bad decision shouldnt cost me a dime.”
Oh, the irony. Your bad decisions shouldn’t cost me my rights to be free from economic tyranny either.
As your your subsequent statement, utter nonsense based purely in your ideology, Bron.
To be clear about something you seem to utterly fail to grasp, your property rights without a government to enforce them are only as valid as your personal ability to defend your property, but I know that the idea that government is necessary to both define and protect property rights is contrary to your idiotic Randian übermensch ideal. I pointed out the language of the source documents and you retreated to your “mine, Mine, MINE!” pseudo-philosophy without any proof from the source materials whatsoever. Sam Adams? Too bad for you ol’ Sam didn’t get to write the Constitution. He’s not even a signatory. His role as a Founder was more directly expressed in his home state of Massachusetts but at the Federal level his contributions were mostly political (wrangling delegates and such) but his steering role in that regard does not mean his words should take precedent over those of the primary drafter Madison or the signatories. You cite (and cherry pick too I might add, Adams had no problem with depriving the Loyalists of their property) an ancillary secondary authority for your interpretation. I’ve used the document itself and I know you been cudgeled with the words of Madison before because I administered the beating. You not only don’t understand the law, you don’t understand the concept of the rule of best evidence. Sam Adams to interpret the Constitution? Unless you’re talking about the Massachusetts State Constitution he had a direct role in, you simply don’t know what you are talking about. Other than to rationalize your love of property and the rank materialism and selfish ego worship your ideology encourages.
Gene H:
you can read it anyway you want. But the bottom line is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or as Sam Adams said “government is for the protection of life, liberty and property.”
So I would say that life, liberty, happiness and property are all things experienced by an individual not by a collective or by government. Our country was established as a haven for the individual to do his own thing unencumbered by the bindings of government. It worked pretty well to, until those damn collectivists came from Europe and started the progressive/Marxist movement. Our country has been screwed ever since.
Freedom has been rolling back ever since.
DaveS:
” why the so called left has turned to this socialist ideology, and the right a more facist ideology I’m not sure. But both sides endorse collectivism, which should have been completely discredited by now as an abject failure.”
I would like to know, I cannot figure it out. I dont think people like freedom anymore, I think it scares the hell out of them. To be free you have to think for yourself and take responsibility for wrong decisions. People dont want to live with their failures but they should embrace failure, its the only way to learn and advance in your personal life, as a culture. Your bad decision shouldnt cost me a dime.
We certainly have been failing miserably for at least 80 years economically, you would think people would reject collectivism but they are embracing it with abandon.
“Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, Block, these are the libertarians you should be reading before you criticize libertarians.”
Read them and found them lacking, DaveS. Especially von Mises. They have had their arguments shredded here on many occasions by more than one person. I’ll not rehash old arguments.
And as for your appraisal of my understanding of the Constitution? Where did you get your law degree? Never mind. I know where I got mine and what I had to do to get it so I’ll take my own counsel on the subject of my expertise in the matters of law, jurisprudence and legal theory. As I said above, my statements above are based on the plain language of the document my knowledge of the jurisprudence surround the Constitution. Where is your evidence?