Not yours to give

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
As I admantly harp on, it's not the federal governments job to appropriate funds to extra-Constitutional bills. I'm almost alone in my dissent. It looks like my argument is hardly a new one, however, this gentleman worded it much better than I have.

Rep D Crockett said:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called
candidates, and---‘


"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

"This was a sockdolager...I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

" ’Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.
…But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“ ‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

" ‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

" ‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.' "The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

" 'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

" ‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'


I heard it elsewhere but found this site with the text. The people understood & the candidates knew they understood. If only we can retrace those steps.
 
Man when are you ever gonna understand we don't live in the 1700s?

Back then there was a fledgling nation of thirteen states. There was a vast expanse of frontier, and a civil war had yet to take place. Now we have very little new frontier and the world is linked by instant communication 365 1/4 24 hours a day! We have seen the ugliness of civil war and the only people inclined toward armed rebellion are tiny splinter groups that put new definitions to the words special interest. Yes the states have a certain amount of sovereignty, but if this is gonna stay the USA in today's world we cannot go back.

We could have 50 mini nations much weaker and easier picking for hostile nations but the modern world and it's circumstances have demanded increases in federal power. It's the ideals of the constitution that are important, not the black letter of the law as written.

If you ever get your wish I hope I'm long dead before it happens. Thing is you won't, so why keep whining?
 
Global village, colonization of other worlds, or annihilation are mankind's three remaining options.

Separatist nationalism is the road to destruction in a long term sense, I'll not argue that we need a "world government" in the next few years but the survival of our planet will most likely make it an inevitability.

Just something to infuriate you further if possible!

:lurk:
 
How long before it's realized that freedom of speech is potentially dangerous & needs to be curtailed? After all, it's a new world.

Until you & those who think like you understand that our constitution was specifically designed to keep the federal powers limited, and that it expressly spelled out those limitaions, we'll keep going broke & giving away freedoms. Read the 9th & 10th amendment. Then read them again.

You are entitled to do what you will with your money. Your Congress is not.
 
Does anyone here believe that there will be a lawsuit against these government takeovers based on the Constitution's guarantee to the states a Republican form of government?
 
Man when are you ever gonna understand we don't live in the 1700s?

Back then there was a fledgling nation of thirteen states. There was a vast expanse of frontier, and a civil war had yet to take place. Now we have very little new frontier and the world is linked by instant communication 365 1/4 24 hours a day! We have seen the ugliness of civil war and the only people inclined toward armed rebellion are tiny splinter groups that put new definitions to the words special interest. Yes the states have a certain amount of sovereignty, but if this is gonna stay the USA in today's world we cannot go back.

We could have 50 mini nations much weaker and easier picking for hostile nations but the modern world and it's circumstances have demanded increases in federal power. It's the ideals of the constitution that are important, not the black letter of the law as written.

If you ever get your wish I hope I'm long dead before it happens. Thing is you won't, so why keep whining?


Does that mean you're gonna dump that "Self evident" rubbish about all men being equal too? As for your 50 mini nations ... Overlay a map of the US over Europe. Not quite so Mini after all, eh?
 
Does that mean you're gonna dump that "Self evident" rubbish about all men being equal too? As for your 50 mini nations ... Overlay a map of the US over Europe. Not quite so Mini after all, eh?

I have no idea what this says about what I am saying. Most of the time I can't nail down much of anything about what you believe politically.

I am just saying that letter of the law use of the constitution in modern times would turn it to 50 mini nations with no central direction. The federal government wouldn't be able to raise money through income tax, what "constitutional-purists" propose is a form of government that gives the USA no cohesion in the modern age. It addresses nearly zero issues related to existence in the modern world. I love the principles the Constitution espouses, but the fact is, what I want is change that matters in the modern world, and what they want would be tantamount to insanity!

I get called a liberal by everyone to the right Bill Clinton (very conservative Democrat), because for some reason the word is regarded as an insult. I don't see my politics as really liberal or conservative, but rather "reactionary-progressive" if you will. I believe at looking at what works and using it, regardless of party affiliation. I am not sure if I've met anyone else who really always tries to look at things that way, but I truly do. I take all those political compass tests and I don't ever score radically in any direction.

I do know, under the current system real change is likely impossible without crisis forcing it to come about.
 
My point is, RJ, that the entire document is hundreds of years old, not just the parts that you don't like. The Federal gov't that you see now was specifically prohibited when your country was founded. The Federal gov't was limited for a reason ... to prevent anyone taking on the power they have now. Remember, when that paper was written, people remembered well the yoke imposed by royalty. They wanted power to rest as close to the local joe as possible. You might elect your president every four years, but any of your country's founders would see that position for what it is ... a short term king.
 
and there has been massive social change since that document was written. an agrarian society is vastly different form the one we have now. what makes sense as far as government is also quite different.
 
Conditional loan does not equal government takeover.

  • The presidential firing of the CEO of GM;
  • The diktat that GM will be abandoning the truck line and building "green" cars;
  • The forced bankruptcy of Chrysler which we had previously been told would throw us into a depression;
  • Forcing the banks to take those "conditional loans" even if they did not need them;
  • Refusing to take the money back from the banks which no longer want the "conditional loan" money;
  • Divvying up GM into good and bad assets and selling off the bad assets by government diktat;
  • Divvying up Chrysler into good and bad assets and selling off the good assets to a foreign corporation by government diktat;
  • Giving 55% of GM to the United Auto Workers by government diktat.

Yeah, sounds like just a "conditional loan" to me too. The problem is that the "condition" is "All of your assets now belong to the United States government."
 
and there has been massive social change since that document was written. an agrarian society is vastly different form the one we have now. what makes sense as far as government is also quite different.

There is an answer. It's spelled out. The amendment process is there for a reason. Want to add or remove powers to/from teh federal government? Convince two thirds of the Congress & two thirds of the states. Voila! The rules are now different.

As for your agrarian society...you are correct, we have changed considerably. However, progressives have overstepped their authority & given power where none was to be given. See, specifically Teddy Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson. Once they began the takeover (which can accurately be argued as having begun under Lincoln), the slope got slicker.

Too bad We the People were convinced to participate in a redistribution of wealth.

Who is John Galt?
 
Too bad We the People were convinced to participate in a redistribution of wealth.

Who is John Galt?


until you spewed this stuff in your post, i was largely agreeing with you.

hey too bad we the people don't own the means of production, like we did when we had farms. oh yeah, again, different world. think of it in terms of dependency. your ass is entirely dependent on your employer. go ahead. quit. think you can swing the start-up costs of your own business? think your kiddies will mind starving? nope. you really can't do nothing.

john galt? he sure as shit ain't you or me. and his creator is a parody of herself. you do realize that all her contemporaries pretty much laughed their asses off at her, and that her stuff is considered pure pop bullshit by just about everyone other than her immediate audience, right? she's sorta like the britneys spears of the world of philosphy.
 
until you spewed this stuff in your post, i was largely agreeing with you.

hey too bad we the people don't own the means of production, like we did when we had farms. oh yeah, again, different world. think of it in terms of dependency. your ass is entirely dependent on your employer. go ahead. quit. think you can swing the start-up costs of your own business? think your kiddies will mind starving? nope. you really can't do nothing.

john galt? he sure as shit ain't you or me. and his creator is a parody of herself. you do realize that all her contemporaries pretty much laughed their asses off at her, and that her stuff is considered pure pop bullshit by just about everyone other than her immediate audience, right? she's sorta like the britneys spears of the world of philosphy.

What she wrote then is the norm now. Only some see it.

Her contemporaries (look that word up) at the time believed that what she was saying could never happen here. At that time, it couldn't have. If she wrote it now, her contemporaries wouldn't be laughing.
 
What she wrote then is the norm now. Only some see it.

Her contemporaries (look that word up) at the time believed that what she was saying could never happen here. At that time, it couldn't have. If she wrote it now, her contemporaries wouldn't be laughing.

jim, first of all, kram the attitude up where you'd prolly like it.

she was a joke then, and she's a joke now.

but, then, i'm sure you know better than anyone else. on every topic. shit you'd pretend to know more than einstein about relativity.

stick to what you know... like hooking them plastic bags on the little rotating thingy.
 
hey too bad we the people don't own the means of production,

We do. For every DANA there's a hundred mom & pop machinist operations. GM is supplied by some huge distributors and some rinky dink shops. Entrepeneurs, not big business, run this country.
 
We do. For every DANA there's a hundred mom & pop machinist operations. GM is supplied by some huge distributors and some rinky dink shops. Entrepeneurs, not big business, run this country.

do YOU????

DANA is a shitcan holding company with no soul.

mom and pop are not doing well. their numbers have been vastly reduced over the past 10 years as the supply base has been re-rationalized. i'm cheering for them, but they ain't in great shape. a lot of the companies i worked with 10 years ago no longer exist.
 
a lot of the companies i worked with 10 years ago no longer exist.

Which is the bane of entrepeneurship. They come & go...and some become monopolies.

Do I? Nope. No interest either, though the old lady has some personal ambitions.
 
There is an answer. It's spelled out. The amendment process is there for a reason. Want to add or remove powers to/from teh federal government? Convince two thirds of the Congress & two thirds of the states.

Make that 2/3 of the Congress and 3/4 of the states.

I could be wrong on that because Minkey says I'm full of shit about everything so ya might wanna check that out.
 
Back
Top