Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 25 Dec '13 16:30 / 1 edit
    Justice McReynolds and President Pierce on welfare and the Constitution:

    ---------------------------------------

    [Dissenting] opinion of MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS.

    That portion of the Social Security legislation here under consideration, I think, exceeds the power granted to Congress. It unduly interferes with the orderly government of the State by her own people and otherwise offends the Federal Constitution.

    In Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 74 U. S. 725 (1869), a cause of momentous importance, this Court, through Chief Justice Chase, declared --

    "But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term that the people of each State compose a State, having its own government and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,"

    "and that, 'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.' [Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 74 U. S. 76.] Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."

    The doctrine thus announced and often repeated, I had supposed was firmly established. Apparently the States remained really free to exercise governmental powers, not delegated or prohibited, without interference by the Federal Government through threats of punitive measures or offers of seductive favors. Unfortunately, the decision just announced opens the way for practical annihilation of this theory, and no cloud of words or ostentatious parade of irrelevant statistics should be permitted to obscure that fact.

    The invalidity, also the destructive tendency, of legislation like the Act before us were forcefully pointed out by President Franklin Pierce in a veto message sent to the Senate May 3, 1854. * He was a scholarly lawyer of distinction, and enjoyed the advice and counsel of a rarely able Attorney General -- Caleb Cushing of Massachusetts. This message considers with unusual lucidity points here specially important. I venture to set out pertinent portions of it which must appeal to all who continue to respect both the letter and spirit of our great charter.

    "To the Senate of the United States:"

    "The bill entitled 'An Act making a grant of public lands to the several States for the benefit of indigent insane persons,' which was presented to me on the 27th ultimo, has been maturely considered, and is returned to the Senate, the House in which it originated, with a statement of the objections which have required me to withhold from it my approval."

    "* * * *"

    "If, in presenting my objections to this bill, I should say more than strictly belongs to the measure or is required for the discharge of my official obligation, let it be attributed to a sincere desire to justify my act before those whose good opinion I so highly value and to that earnestness which springs from my deliberate conviction that a strict adherence to the terms and purposes of the federal compact offers the best, if not the only, security for the preservation of our blessed inheritance of representative liberty."

    "The bill provides in substance:"

    "First. That 10,000,000 acres of land be granted to the several States, to be apportioned among them in the compound ratio of the geographical area and representation of said States in the House of Representatives. "

    "Second. That wherever there are public lands in a State subject to sale at the regular price of private entry, the proportion of said 10,000,000 acres falling to such State shall be selected from such lands within it, and that, to the States in which there are no such public lands land scrip shall be issued to the amount of their distributive shares, respectively, said scrip not to be entered by said States, but to be sold by them and subject to entry by their assignees: Provided, That none of it shall be sold at less than $1 per acre, under penalty of forfeiture of the same to the United States."

    "Third. That the expenses of the management and superintendence of said lands and of the moneys received therefrom shall be paid by the States to which they may belong out of the treasury of said States."

    "Fourth. That the gross proceeds of the sales of such lands or land scrip so granted shall be invested by the several States in safe stocks, to constitute a perpetual fund, the principal of which shall remain forever undiminished, and the interest to be appropriated to the maintenance of the indigent insane within the several States."

    "Fifth. That annual returns of lands or scrip sold shall be made by the States to the Secretary of the Interior, and the whole grant be subject to certain conditions and limitations prescribed in the bill, to be assented to by legislative acts of said States."

    "This bill therefore proposes that the Federal Government shall make provision to the amount of the value of 10,000,000 acres of land for an eleemosynary object within the several States, to be administered by the political authority of the same, and it presents at the threshold the question whether any such act on the part of the Federal Government is warranted and sanctioned by the Constitution, the provisions and principles of which are to be protected and sustained as a first and paramount duty. "

    "It cannot be questioned that, if Congress has power to make provision for the indigent insane without the limits of this District, it has the same power to provide for the indigent who are not insane, and thus to transfer to the Federal Government the charge of all the poor in all the States. It has the same power to provide hospitals and other local establishments for the care and cure of every species of human infirmity, and thus to assume all that duty of either public philanthropy or public necessity to the dependent, the orphan, the sick, or the needy which is now discharged by the States themselves or by corporate institutions or private endowments existing under the legislation of the States. The whole field of public beneficence is thrown open to the care and culture of the Federal Government. Generous impulses no longer encounter the limitations and control of our imperious fundamental law; for however worthy may be the present object in itself, it is only one of a class. It is not exclusively worthy of benevolent regard. Whatever considerations dictate sympathy for this particular object apply in like manner, if not in the same degree, to idiocy, to physical disease, to extreme destitution. If Congress may and ought to provide for any one of these objects, it may and ought to provide for them all. And if it be done in this case, what answer shall be given when Congress shall be called upon, as it doubtless will be, to pursue a similar course of legislation in the others? It will obviously be vain to reply that the object is worthy, but that the application has taken a wrong direction. The power will have been deliberately assumed, the general obligation will by this act have been acknowledged, and the question of means and expediency will alone be left for consideration. The decision upon the principle in any one case determines it for the whole class. The question presented, therefore, clearly is upon the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government's assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely that of providing for the care and support of all those among the people of the United States who, by any form of calamity, become fit objects of public philanthropy."
  2. 25 Dec '13 16:32 / 1 edit
    "I readily and, I trust, feelingly acknowledge the duty incumbent on us all as men and citizens, and as among the highest and holiest of our duties, to provide for those who, in the mysterious order of Providence, are subject to want and to disease of body or mind; but I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded. And if it were admissible to contemplate the exercise of this power for any object whatever, I cannot avoid the belief that it would, in the end, be prejudicial, rather than beneficial, in the noble offices of charity to have the charge of them transferred from the States to the Federal Government. Are we not too prone to forget that the Federal Union is the creature of the States, not they of the Federal Union? We were the inhabitants of colonies distinct in local government one from the other before the revolution. By that Revolution, the colonies each became an independent State. They achieved that independence and secured its recognition by the agency of a consulting body which, from being an assembly of the ministers of distinct sovereignties instructed to agree to no form of government which did not leave the domestic concerns of each State to itself, was appropriately denominated a Congress. When, having tried the experiment of the Confederation, they resolved to change that, for the present Federal Union, and thus to confer on the Federal Government more ample authority, they scrupulously measured such of the functions of their cherished sovereignty as they chose to delegate to the General Government. With this aim and to this end, the fathers of the Republic framed the Constitution, in and by which the independent and sovereign States united themselves for certain specified objects and purposes, and for those only, leaving all powers not therein set forth as conferred on one or another of the three great departments -- the legislative, the executive, and the judicial -- indubitably with the States. And when the people of the several States had in their State conventions, and thus alone, given effect and force to the Constitution, not content that any doubt should in future arise as to the scope and character of this act, they ingrafted thereon the explicit declaration that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively or to the people."

    "Can it be controverted that the great mass of the business of Government -- that involved in the social relations, the internal arrangements of the body politic, the mental and moral culture of men, the development of local resources of wealth, the punishment of crimes in general, the preservation of order, the relief of the needy or otherwise unfortunate members of society -- did in practice remain with the States; that none of these objects of local concern are by the Constitution expressly or impliedly prohibited to the States, and that none of them are by any express language of the Constitution transferred to the United States? Can it be claimed that any of these functions of local administration and legislation are vested in the Federal Government by any implication? I have never found anything in the Constitution which is susceptible of such a construction. No one of the enumerated powers touches the subject, or has even a remote analogy to it. The powers conferred upon the United States have reference to federal relations, or to the means of accomplishing or executing things of federal relation. So also of the same character are the powers taken away from the States by enumeration. In either case, the powers granted and the powers restricted were so granted or so restricted only where it was requisite for the maintenance of peace and harmony between the States or for the purpose of protecting their common interests and defending their common sovereignty against aggression from abroad or insurrection at home."

    "I shall not discuss at length the question of power sometimes claimed for the General Government under the clause of the eighth section of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,"

    "because if it has not already been settled upon sound reason and authority, it never will be. I take the received and just construction of that article, as if written to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises in order to pay the debts and in order to provide for the common defense and general welfare. It is not a substantive general power to provide for the welfare of the United States, but is a limitation on the grant of power to raise money by taxes, duties, and imposts. If it were otherwise, all the rest of the Constitution, consisting of carefully enumerated and cautiously guarded grants of specific powers, would have been useless, if not delusive. It would be impossible in that view to escape from the conclusion that these were inserted only to mislead for the present, and, instead of enlightening and defining the pathway of the future, to involve its action in the mazes of doubtful construction. Such a conclusion the character of the men who framed that sacred instrument will never permit us to form. Indeed, to suppose it susceptible of any other construction would be to consign all the rights of the States and of the people of the States to the mere discretion of Congress, and thus to clothe the federal Government with authority to control the sovereign States, by which they would have been dwarfed into provinces or departments and all sovereignty vested in an absolute consolidated central power, against which the spirit of liberty has so often and in so many countries struggled in vain."

    "In my judgment, you cannot by tributes to humanity make any adequate compensation for the wrong you would inflict by removing the sources of power and political action from those who are to be thereby affected. If the time shall ever arrive when, for an object appealing, however strongly, to our sympathies, the dignity of the States shall bow to the dictation of Congress by conforming their legislation thereto, when the power and majesty and honor of those who created shall become subordinate to the thing of their creation, I but feebly utter my apprehensions when I express my firm conviction that we shall see 'the beginning of the end.'"

    "Fortunately, we are not left in doubt as to the purpose of the Constitution any more than as to its express language, for although the history of its formation, as recorded in the Madison Papers, shows that the Federal Government in its present form emerged from the conflict of opposing influences which have continued to divide statesmen from that day to this, yet the rule of clearly defined powers and of strict construction presided over the actual conclusion and subsequent adoption of the Constitution. President Madison, in the Federalist, says:"

    " The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. . . . Its [the General Government's] jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. "

    "In the same spirit, President Jefferson invokes"

    "the support of the State governments in all their rights as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies,"

    "and President Jackson said that our true strength and wisdom are not promoted by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States, but that, on the contrary, they consist 'not in binding the States more closely to the center, but in leaving each more unobstructed in its proper orbit.'"

    "The framers of the Constitution, in refusing to confer on the Federal Government any jurisdiction over these purely local objects, in my judgment, manifested a wise forecast and broad comprehension of the true interests of these objects themselves. It is clear that public charities within the States can be efficiently administered only by their authority. The bill before me concedes this, for it does not commit the funds it provides to the administration of any other authority."

    "I cannot but repeat what I have before expressed, that, if the several States, many of which have already laid the foundation of munificent establishments of local beneficence, and nearly all of which are proceeding to establish them, shall be led to suppose, as, should this bill become a law, they will be, that Congress is to make provision for such objects, the fountains of charity will be dried up at home, and the several States, instead of bestowing their own means on the social wants of their own people, may themselves, through the strong temptation which appeals to states as to individuals, become humble suppliants for the bounty of the Federal Government, reversing their true relations to this Union."

    "* * * *"

    "I have been unable to discover any distinction on constitutional grounds or grounds of expediency between an appropriation of $10,000,000 directly from the money in the Treasury for the object contemplated and the appropriation of lands presented for my sanction, and yet I cannot doubt that, if the bill proposed $10,000,000 from the Treasury of the United States for the support of the indigent insane in the several States, that the constitutional question involved in the act would have attracted forcibly the attention of Congress."
  3. 25 Dec '13 16:33
    "I respectfully submit that, in a constitutional point of view, it is wholly immaterial whether the appropriation be in money or in land."

    "* * * *"

    "To assume that the public lands are applicable to ordinary State objects, whether of public structures, police, charity, or expenses of State administration, would be to disregard to the amount of the value of the public lands all the limitations of the Constitution and confound to that extent all distinctions between the rights and powers of the States and those of the United States; for if the public lands may be applied to the support of the poor, whether sane or insane, if the disposal of them and their proceeds be not subject to the ordinary limitations of the Constitution, then Congress possesses unqualified power to provide for expenditures in the States by means of the public lands, even to the degree of defraying the salaries of governors, judges, and all other expenses of the government and internal administration within the several States."

    "The conclusion from the general survey of the whole subject is to my mind irresistible, and closes the question both of right and of expediency so far as regards the principle of the appropriation proposed in this bill. Would not the admission of such power in Congress to dispose of the public domain work the practical abrogation of some of the most important provisions of the Constitution?"

    "* * * *"

    "The general result at which I have arrived is the necessary consequence of those views of the relative rights, powers, and duties of the States and of the Federal Government which I have long entertained and often expressed and in reference to which my convictions do but increase in force with time and experience."

    No defense is offered for the legislation under review upon the basis of emergency. The hypothesis is that hereafter it will continuously benefit unemployed members of a class. Forever, so far as we can see, the States are expected to function under federal direction concerning an internal matter. By the sanction of this adventure, the door is open for progressive inauguration of others of like kind under which it can hardly be expected that the States will retain genuine independence of action. And without independent States a Federal Union as contemplated by the Constitution becomes impossible.

    At the bar, counsel asserted that, under the present Act, the tax upon residents of Alabama during the first year will total $9,000,000. All would remain in the Federal Treasury but for the adoption by the State of measures agreeable to the National Board. If continued, these will bring relief from the payment of $8,000,000 to the United States.

    Ordinarily, I must think, a denial that the challenged action of Congress and what has been done under it amount to coercion and impair freedom of government by the people of the State would be regarded as contrary to practical experience. Unquestionably our federate plan of government confronts an enlarged peril.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/301/548/case.html
  4. 25 Dec '13 16:36
    TL;DR. Was there a specific point you wanted to discuss?
  5. 25 Dec '13 16:40
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    TL;DR. Was there a specific point you wanted to discuss?
    You can debate the reasoning of the opinion in the OP. I bet you that most people here disagree with it.
  6. 25 Dec '13 16:43
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    TL;DR. Was there a specific point you wanted to discuss?
    The OP also relates to this thread: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=157056&page=2

    However, because the OP is so long, I did not want to clutter up the other thread.
  7. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    25 Dec '13 17:14
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    You can debate the reasoning of the opinion in the OP. I bet you that most people here disagree with it.
    I bet most people here will not bother reading it.
  8. 25 Dec '13 17:57
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    The OP also relates to this thread: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=157056&page=2

    However, because the OP is so long, I did not want to clutter up the other thread.
    Ever thought about writing a political blog?
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    25 Dec '13 19:21
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    "I respectfully submit that, in a constitutional point of view, it is wholly immaterial whether the appropriation be in money or in land."

    "* * * *"

    "To assume that the public lands are applicable to ordinary State objects, whether of public structures, police, charity, or expenses of State administration, would be to disregard to the amount of th ...[text shortened]... nt confronts an enlarged peril.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/301/548/case.html
    It's interesting that Congress in 1854 was already passing legislation that rejected the cramped reading of express, enumerated powers that this dissent adopted.

    Of course, the Framers had rejected said theory in the First Congress by adopting the First National Bank, Hamilton's American system and other measures deemed essential to fully the primary purpose of the constitution i.e. to economically strengthen the nation.
  10. 26 Dec '13 01:04
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    It's interesting that Congress in 1854 was already passing legislation that rejected the cramped reading of express, enumerated powers that this dissent adopted.

    Of course, the Framers had rejected said theory in the First Congress by adopting the First National Bank, Hamilton's American system and other measures deemed essential to fully the primary purpose of the constitution i.e. to economically strengthen the nation.
    Your point is that the Federal Government has been ignoring the Constitution for a long time now?

    Yeah, I would have to agree with you on that one.

    Does that change the fact that they are ignoring the Constitution and doing something wrong?

    No, it does not give them an excuse to do so.
  11. 26 Dec '13 01:45
    Originally posted by rwingett
    I bet most people here will not bother reading it.
    Ya think?
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    26 Dec '13 03:03 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Your point is that the Federal Government has been ignoring the Constitution for a long time now?

    Yeah, I would have to agree with you on that one.

    Does that change the fact that they are ignoring the Constitution and doing something wrong?

    No, it does not give them an excuse to do so.
    My point is that the way right wingers read the Constitution is inconsistent with the way the Framers intended. It was a vast expansion of central governmental power and to claim otherwise is a grievous error. If the Framers had been content with the type of government present day right wingers think is optimal, the Articles of Confederation would have been fine perhaps with minor alterations.
  13. 26 Dec '13 07:26
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    My point is that the way right wingers read the Constitution is inconsistent with the way the Framers intended. It was a vast expansion of central governmental power and to claim otherwise is a grievous error. If the Framers had been content with the type of government present day right wingers think is optimal, the Articles of Confederation would have been fine perhaps with minor alterations.
    It would be good to see a list of the fatal flaws in the Articles of Confederation that the Constitution was created (however imperfectly) to correct. I imagine entering into foreign treaties, issuing currency, and state nullification of confederation laws (if any)?
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    26 Dec '13 13:28
    The list is long. Federalist Papers 15-22, mostly written by Hamilton, review the defects in depth.http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/federalist-papers

    Striking is this statement in Federalist 15:

    The great and radical vice in the construction of the existing Confederation is in the principle of LEGISLATION for STATES or GOVERNMENTS, in their CORPORATE or COLLECTIVE CAPACITIES, and as contradistinguished from the INDIVIDUALS of which they consist.
  15. 26 Dec '13 16:32
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    My point is that the way right wingers read the Constitution is inconsistent with the way the Framers intended. It was a vast expansion of central governmental power and to claim otherwise is a grievous error. If the Framers had been content with the type of government present day right wingers think is optimal, the Articles of Confederation would have been fine perhaps with minor alterations.
    So you go back to 1850 to show what the framers intended.

    Nice to see your perspective.