Again, the General Welfare Clause was lifted from the AoCs... But as Hamilton observes in Federalist 30:
Hamilton was not writing about the general welfare cluase in this snapshot of his views (he reversed himself so often that one needs a metaphorical corkscrew to follow his reasoning). He was writing about taxation in what you cited from Federalist 30. He made no mention of general welfare in that essay, and you're attempt to link the to is not up to your normal disputational skills.
THIS IS YOUR TALMUD HERE... the Federalist Papers.... This is Hamilton being very clear that spending is Plenary..
My "Talmud" is called "the Talmud" (although I'm not Jewish and feel no need for regular reference to its teachings). "My" federalist papers are called "The Federalist." My Constitution is the Constitution of the United States. The interesting thing linking all three efforts is that Hamilton calls for plenary spending in none of them. He makes no mention of it at all in your citation. He said it provides for the "pecuniary wants of the union." What are those pecuniary wants? Do they have limits, such as for example, the detail of defined powers? He doesn't say here. You're reading into his language that which is not said.
Well, of course it is different as Congress has no ability to change the meaning of the Constitution outside the amendment process.
No it is no different.
Yes. It is different as we shall see.
[*] Congress BY LAW can define what is and is not a "debt of the United States"
Not true. Your own distorted reading, out of context, of a phrase in the 14th Amendment.
[*]Congress BY LAW can define what is and is not part of "the common Defense of the United States"
Actually, I'm not certain what you mean here. Congress can't, for example, decide that the common defense of the United States can be furthered by eliminating the boundary between North and South Dakota and calling them one state. Clearly, then, Congress doesn't have the unlimited authority you're granting it here.
[*]Congress BY LAW can define whether or not an Executive Order has or lacks The Force of Law. (it has had the Force of Law since Pres. Washington's first EO in 1793)
True, but hardly relevant as Congress can decide that which is law and is not law in any case -- that's what legislature does is decide what the laws are. Our judiciary decides whether the laws passed by Congress conform to the Constitution and when they do not, the laws are thrown out -- or an amendment is required.
No you have said that the POTUS has the authority to initiate military actions against other sovereign nations. That is itself an "Act of War" under the "Laws of Nations" and has been since before the founding of the nation and is thus incorporated law. Thus "initiating War" and "initiating an Act of War" are legally (and hence Constitutionally) indistinguishable.
Not every military action against another nation is considered a war. Our country occupied Haiti for nearly a decade through the 20s and 30s, and there was never a war or a declaration thereof. You're going to lose any debate that doesn't recognize that and another dozen similar actions that are not matters of dispute -- they happened, and they were not wars. Further, for a state of war to exist there is no legal requirement that Congress declare the war (and that is true even given your own distorted reading of the Prize Cases). All that needs to happen is for the warring entity to declare war on the U.S. or to attack the U.S. or its allies, and we're "legally" at war without any declaration thereof.
Your arguement turns a blind eye to this and redefines "war" as simply any military engagement you want it to be (such as the UNProFor participation in the Sovereign Nation of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan - where the USA is in a "state of war" with no-one) and not one you do not want it to be (invading Iraq with no Declaration of War from Congress, nor any causus belli from Iraq).
And your view turns an equally blind eye to the fact that non national entities can conduct wartime operations against our government and are legitimately the subjects of a military response. We are not at war with the post-Taliban government of Afghanistan. We are definitely at war with an entity in Afghanistan who has declared war on us -- Al Qaeda. Our fight with that entity is sanctioned by our own laws, as we have a sovereign right to self defense against such an entity.
If ever there was an unleashing of governmental power - the power to initiate and wage war is it - since it deals with the suppression of the most basic of rights. And yet you blithely eviscerate the very clearly stated, the very clearly structured, the very clearly documented and the very clearly SCOTUS Rulings that contradict your position.
I do no such thing. I merely read the words written in the rulings and take them at face value. You cannnot enforce an implication. Further, I find no words in our Constitution that require a declaration of war -- where do those words appear? They do not.
Under your definition of "interstate Commerce"... NO FARMER is engaged in "interstate commerce"... because your definition of "sold across a state line" means that the transaction itself is literally transacted across the line. After all, you do not consider it "interstate commerce" to conclude a transaction locally, even if the product is interstate sourced
.
And under yours, all commerce is interstate, and all activities are commerce, and there are no limits to any regulation the government wants to set on any activity. I'm not certain how you can object, as I know you do, to
Raich, based on your view of commerce.
And again - where then does interstate commerce occur? In orbit above the states? In some magically created Houyhnhnm-land that does not exist WITHIN A SINGLE STATE?
Puhlease -- When a freight train or 18-wheeler carries goods across a state line because a merchant in that state has ordered goods from aonother state, interstate commerce has occurred. When the merchant goes on to sell those goods within his own state, interstate commerce is not occurring.
[*]There is a high likelihood of the results of the commerce crossing state lines (applies to your painter acquaintance)
No -- a likelihood is insufficient for regulatory purposes. The commerce must be shown to be taking place before regulations should apply. We can't regulate a "liklihood" any more than we can enforce an implication.
[*]The products key components HAVE crossed state lines (Wonder bread)
Those key components can be regulated when they cross state lines -- but when the bread is sold there's no crossing of state lines and that trade shouldn't be regulated.
[*]The purchasor or seller are often legal residents of another state (pretty much every other transaction)
Only if you can show that this is actually taking place. We should never have a ruling like Wickard where a portion of the farmer's crop not being sold is "interstate" because the rest of it being sold might be interstate. The federal government can only regulate the interstate portion.
[*]The product has a strong market in other states and thus altering the volume of its production locally affects the markets in other states (Scalia in Raich)
Nope -- I don't care how strong the market is in another state, unless the product is being sold in that other market, it isn't interstate trade. Scalia was simply wrong (along with the majority of the court) in Raich.
The results of production of the product, affect other states (Ohio emissions poisoning NY and New England lakes)
Truly interstate, and probably legitimately regulable -- but not as commerce.
So you seek to redefine "interstate commerce" to be only that commerce that is transacted physically across the state lines. And since the intertubes and even the telegraph had not yet been invented when this clause was created - the notion that they added something to The Constitution to deal with the case where a vendor stood on one side of a state-line and the purchasor on the other - is frankly ludicrous.
Degs, if I order a toy helicopter off the Internet, it was probably made in China, imported to California, and will cross 10 state lines before it gets to me. The same will be largely true of any other mail order product, whether the order goes through a telephone line, postal mail, via satellites and fiber optics, or by snail trail. I'm saying all of those transactions are interstate in nature -- but me selling a tomato to my neighbor across the street is not.
And yes, I am imposing that definition of "interstate Commerce" on you - because it is a logical extrapolation (best fit curve) of the examples you seem to consider "local" commerce. You have yet to define what you consider "interstate commerce"... and thus we can only reason based on your examples.
I've now defined it.