Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

This is real Thuggery

By

SEIU Union Thuggery rearing its ugly head once again.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Really?  Does he control them using embedded chips and a satellite?

    <

    p>If I’d watched it without the inflammatory title, I wouldn’t even be sure who all was involved or what the fight was about.

    • May I congratulate on you great choice of a moniker. This is real thuggery by democratic totalitarianists. Right down to violence. I defy anyone to define totalitarianism otherwise.  

      • How do you know the folks who instigated this are democrats, let alone
        “totalitarianists?”

        <

        p>Again, the personal attacks and smears don’t really help your point, assuming you have one.

  2. Hard to tell what was going on, but if someone claimed “He attacked me” I guess it must be true!

  3. and what I saw immediately was a guy with a purple (SEIU?) shirt and khaki pants lying on the ground… unfortunately the camera didn’t follow him as he quietly walked away.

    <

    p>Then, just a lot of non-purple-shirt shouting.  Go figure.

    • yelling and looking back to make sure the camera was still on was most entertaining.  Not really.  

      <

      p>One SEIU member was taken to the hospital.

    • Get real.  This is Democrat thuggery.  Several minutes of  harsh multi-syllable words some in French (“babouin!”), then moments of regret followed with a candle light vigil and threats of litigation.  Expect Al Sharpton. Brie.

      • between this and the birthers, Republicans got some bat*hit crazies out there. Kind of sad in a way.

          • Remember how the left compared Bush to Hitler frequently during his presidency, claims of fascism, etc.

            <

            p>I say this because I find the hyperbolic tone used my most on the left and right to be pretty pathetic.  

            • I have no memory of anyone comparing the GOP to the Nazi Party of George Bush to Hitler.  Google did come up with a user submitted move on ad which was widely criticized and removed:

              <

              p>

              Republican groups and Jewish organizations expressed outrage over the ad, which has been removed from the MoveOn.org Web site. The Republican National Committee called on all nine Democratic candidates to condemn the ads.

              <

              p>Interesting that there’s been no similar condemnation of Rush.

              <

              p>Fascism is not the same thing as Nazism.  

              <

              p>

              Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak. Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state. Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement. Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.

              <

              p>

              Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right. The Nazis were one of several historical groups that used the term National Socialism to describe themselves, and in the 1920s they became the largest such group. The Nazi Party presented its program in the 25 point National Socialist Program in 1920. Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism, eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism.

                • 1) per the link the stickers said “Most hated world leaders since Hitler”
                  2) per the link,

                  <

                  p>

                  Tonya Tennessen, the DFL Party’s managing communications director, said Wednesday that about 10 such stickers arrived in the mail from “an organization I’ve never heard of,” called changetheregime.us. The stickers sat on a receptionist’s desk “for about two hours until I removed them,” Tennessen said. “These are not something we were or are distributing.”

                  <

                  p>Try again.

                • Even the Republican complaining says there were only 10 stickers. And the DFL repudiated them.

                  <

                  p>I’m still waiting for even one of the GOP folks on here to repudiate Rush or his comparison.

                • I don’t make a demigod of a pill-popper because he has a big radio contract. I never voted for him, nor do I listen to him.  

                  <

                  p>I wouldn’t insist that someone on this site repudiate a Democrat they know nothing about simply because they share party affiliation.  

                  <

                  p>If Edmund Burke goes on the radio and makes such spurious comments though, let me know and I’ll condemn it.  

                • I have friends who listen to NPR 24×7.  It makes me crazy when I ride with them.  

                  <

                  p>I’d much rather be listening to music.

                • What the Congressman said is 9/11 is “almost like the Reichstag fire” in the sense that it was used to justify a number of crackdowns on individual freedom.

                  <

                  p>I encourage you to watch the video.

                • The last 3 seconds are “put the leader of that country, basically in a position to do whatever he wanted.”

                  <

                  p>keep trying.

              • That was posted in the Teapot Thuggery” in Worcester. You posted in it. I know,,, you only buy Playboy for the articles. huh: you’re losing credibility too easily.

            • The difference is that there was no left equivalent of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh who said it loudly and publicly and/or was embraced by much of the Democratic Party.  Sorry, there’s no equivalency here; the right did it to Clinton too, going as far as accusing him of murdering Vince Foster.

              • From a ratings/popularity standpoint none exist.

                <

                p>I heard a lefty pundit talking about how anxious he was for 2010 elections to bring up the extreme comments from Rush… and I thought “What seat is Rush running for?” Rush, Glenn, Bill O’Reilly… are talk show hosts and are not running for office. I would hope any Republican running for office doesn’t bring up Keith Olberman or Maddow’s comments/views since THEY are not running for office either and are totally irrelevant.

                • …do those who actually are running embrace those hosts.  Many GOP leaders have felt it necessary to apologize for criticizing them.  I’m at least as glad as you are that there is no left equivalent and I’m very happy that nobody on the left would get ratings for being the kind of host that they are.  To me that speaks to the sanity of our side.

                • don’t care whether they “embrace” those talk show host… h FACT of he matter is we will vote for the people and not the talk show hosts. They are not running NOR are they on their campaign staff (which I do think would be an issue). Certainly politics makes you “work” with people whom you would rather not if it leads to a positive result. Bill Clinton is surely not friends, nor does he endorse , Kim Yong-sam but he met with him for photo shots to get those women home (which I applaud).

                  <

                  p>You are either biased or naive to think the left would not fully seek the help of a liberal talk show host who garnered the rating of Rush  or Glenn BEck. As it is, you can check the line-up of either Maddow or Olbermann’s show and see the favorite liberal of the day appearing there and other friendly MSM locations (The View, Leno, Letterman…).

                • We would mind the frothing at the mouth.  You’re right about working with people you disagree, but that’s different from the homage-paying we see to Rush from GOP leaders.  Olberman and Maddow don’t come close (as you gleefully point out with regard to ratings).  All Hell will not break lose if a Democrat happens to say he disagrees with either of them, but there’s also less need to because they are a lot saner.

                • Olbermann and Maddow BASH Republicans every single night. Keith is over the top and they NEVER come close to even handed. I think you and your ilk follow their lead and agree with their mesage but please don’t think there is ANY difference between these 2 groups (other than the popularity numbers).

                • …just not beyond the pale.

                  <

                  p>(Sorry, KBusch, I fear I’m going to have to back off this habit slowly.)

                • I think that’s the key. Just trust that anyone who is going to read the political arcana that make up BMG commentary has some sophistication.

                  <

                  p>Lurking readers can be counted on to recognize false equivalences, gloating, and proof by capital letters as the lame rhetorical devices that they are.

                  <

                  p>You can let such comments sit. They refute themselves.

                  <

                  p>You don’t need to help them.

                  <

                  p>And if you find that difficult, here’s help: you can always resort to kirth’s excellent approach of answering by punctuation.

                • If you mean a talk show host of this variety Jay Severin or possibly Howie Carr, though you can certainly hear the national voices here.

                  <

                  p>If you mean a Republican who feels the need to bow to this crowd then you’re correct; what’s left of the GOP here appears to be sane – thank God!

                • Yes, it all those busybody outsiders riling us virtually extinct MA Republicans up. Everything is beautiful in Blue Land. Keep thinking happy thoughts.  

                • …that billxi is a Republican.

                  <

                  p>You might want to take a peak over at RMG before drawing a conclusion on GOP sanity.  You should recognize most of the players…

                • I guess I was refering to current and recent past elected officials labeled R.  Also, I think Peter Porcupine and EaBoClipper (the former and RSC member and the latter on state party staff if I remember correctly) make their points without making me cringe the vast majority of the time.

                • never worked for the Massachusetts Republican State Committee.  I do print collateral for them from time to time.

                • I must have missed you at the last cross burning. Next time wear a smily face on your back and we’ll chat after. I’ll be the one with the Laura Ashley print (king size) and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle slippers.

                • I’d love to hear Michael Graham and Jay Severin’s reactions to that.

                  <

                  p>I used to think you were just incoherently angry, although I was never sure why. Now, I’m starting to think you’ve completely lost touch with reality.

                  <

                  p>Either way, responding to you has become pointless.  You bring nothing to the conversation besides non-sequiturs and invective.

                • think Eagan and Braude are the best talk show on the air. Mainly because while a crazy moonbat, Braude is funny and engaging.  You’d do well to get him syndicated.  Maddow and Garafolo come off as angry and preachy.

                • Braude is so annoying but the two of them have good chemistry and make it fun. Best of TKK.

    • at least be clever.

      <

      p>I’m reading Nixonland right now. The history of left-wing violence is well-documented. But when it comes to anger and hatefulness these days, it’s not coming from the left. That’s you guys. Plain and simple.

      <

      p>Right-wing attempts to infiltrate and subvert lefty and labor groups have a long history; another trick is to provoke protesters into action that can then be spun against them. Is that happening here? Don’t know.

      <

      p>Health insurance companies sending astroturfies as agent provocateurs to protests? Could happen. It will take more than a some YouTube video to make a case.

      • Maybe you are one of the “complainers” of the Bush Big Brother years, SO… how do you feel about the White House gathering the names of people who are complaining about the Healthcare Bill? How American is it to collect the names of dissenters (Can you say Joe McCarthy, can you say J. Edgar Hoover…)? Is it even legal for him to do this???

        <

        p>Try to spin this story into something positive about Obama’s White House!!!

        • Especially since you started the spinning.

          <

          p>My understanding is that the White House is looking for PUBLICLY AVAILABLE information regarding who’s making what arguments so they know what they’re up against and how to respond.  This isn’t much different from the anti-smear webpage that his campaign set up last year.

          • They can justify giving STD to black servicemen i they had to (Tuskegee). What Obama is doing is illegal and should be stopped immediately. Shame on all you Supposed” civil libertarians. Nothing is worse than partisanship trumping moral backbones.

            <

            p>David and Bob, both lawyers… what’s your stance on this “information” gathering initiative????

            <

            p>All BMGers would be calling for heads if this was a Republican President… Here I go again… HYPOCRITES!!!!!

            • Check your sources. The problem with the number of GOP lies is that inevitably some of the GOP come to believe them.

              <

              p>Here’s from the The White House Blog

              There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

            • Comparison to Tuskegee is over the top.  This is NOT equivalent to warrentless wiretapping, which is what the Bush White House was doing.

              • Was a crime against humanity. Regardless of responsibility. I liken it to Governor Patrick’s cuts of DMR. Oh, I forgot, they don’t vote the democratic ticket, let ’em die. Saves enough money for Deval to hire another buddy. All sarcasm intended/

              • In that the warrantless wiretapping was only being done on phone calls in which one component was foreign.  Much like coming into the United States those conversations are fair game. I am subject to warrantless search and seizure when driving over the border. Why should communications be different?

                <

                p>This was a direct ask of the american people to turn in their neighbors.  The Bush admin never did anything like this.

        • you could find out by looking at my previous posts and comments. I’ve been on here for years.

          <

          p>Incidentally, you’re off topic and not providing sources. You couldn’t beat a high school debater without addressing these stock issues.

  5. I offer this YouTube clip, not as proof of anything, but to demonstrate the possibility that there may be a concerted effort to discredit the SEIU and by association, health insurance reform.

    <

    p>If I haven’t embedded this correctly, here’s the link.

    <

    p>

    • SEIU through it’s support of illegal immigration, and other socialist policies does a great job of discrediting itself.

      • Let’s take a look at what the SEIU has to say about immigration reform – they are pro-legalization for illegal immigrants who are already here:

        <

        p>

        “Hard working, tax-paying immigrants who are living in this country should be given every opportunity to come forward, pay a fine, and earn legal status and a path toward citizenship. Successful reform mandates the most expansive earned legalization provisions that would make eligible the largest number of undocumented persons… The benefits of an expansive legalization program are clear: employer compliance with withholding requirements is best achieved by the highest level of participation in the legalization programs; people will come out of the shadows and be able to work at higher paying and more secure jobs; and families will be reunited.”

        <

        p>Source:  Pro-Con.org

        <

        p>Does that really amount to support of illegal immigration?  I don’t think so – though it does offer a sensible solution to the problem we are now faced with.

          • Are they encouraging others to illegally immigrate by forming a sensible policy for how to deal with the ones that are already here?  Are people from other countries, who are thinking of illegally immigrating, reading the SEIU’s position and deciding in favor of doing so?  Somehow, I don’t think so…

              • Show me a study which shows conclusively that the SEIU’s position on immigration reform causes more illegal immigration and I’ll change my mind – until you can do that, your pet theories aren’t worth the space they’re taking up between your ears.

      • Are you suggesting that the SEIU deserves death threats because of their “support of illegal immigration” and “other socialist policies”?  It seems to me that you espouse certain conservative policies – if I disagree with you, would it be ok with you if I threatened you with death?  Or were you just trying to change the subject?  I suspect it’s the latter, since that’s your typical debating MO…

  6. It turns out that Gladney was recently laid off from his job, and now he lacks…health insurance!!

    <

    p>

    Kenneth Gladney sat in a wheelchair on Pershing Avenue Saturday, his knee bandaged, holding a flag that read: “Don’t Tread on Me.”  

    Gladney, 38, was handing out the same flags after a town hall forum in Mehlville Thursday night, when, he says, he was attacked by members of the Service Employees International Union.

    Less than 48 hours later, protesters gathered Saturday in front of the union’s offices, many of them holding signs with a slightly different version of the message: “Don’t Tread on Kenny.”
    …

    The forum in Mehlville, organized by U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-Mo., to discuss aging, turned ugly when some audience members began yelling about health care reform. After the event, several fights broke out and six people were arrested.

    The incident has elevated tempers, with people on both sides of the health care debate arguing over who threw the first punches. Members and supporters of the St. Louis “Tea Party” coalition say Gladney was attacked, unprovoked. Union members and their supporters say Gladney initiated the fight.

    …

    Gladney did not address Saturday’s crowd of about 200 people. His attorney, David Brown, however, read a prepared statement Gladney wrote. “A few nights ago there was an assault on my liberty, and on yours, too.” Brown read. “This should never happen in this country.”

    Supporters cheered. Brown finished by telling the crowd that Gladney is accepting donations toward his medical expenses. Gladney told reporters he was recently laid off and has no health insurance.

    <

    p>Source:  St. Louis Dispatch

    <

    p>So, this guy doesn’t want health care reform, but he lost his insurance when he lost his job – which wouldn’t have happened to him if we had health care reform!!  He’s voting against his own self-interest, just like a good little authoritarian follower.

    <

    p>Anyone want a broken irony meter?  Mine’s pegged all the way over to “unbelievable”, I guess I need a new one…

      • Please face this fact:  if we had the type of health care reform currently being discussed, he would not now be begging for donations to pay his medical expenses.

          • Have you ever heard of irony?  Are you incapabale of seeing the irony in the above situation?

            <

            p>The fact that this man needs charity for his medical expenses is what we are trying to fix with health care reform – no one’s going to kill your grandma or Sarah Palin’s infant, but the loss of benefits when you lose your job will be addressed, along with a host of other issues that make health care such a crap shoot in this country.  

            <

            p>Instead of chanting “read the bill” at health care forums, perhaps you should take your side’s advice and actually, you know, read the bill yourself…

            • Teddy Kennedy receiving super extraordinary brain cancer surgery, including being flown to Duke University so THE LEADING EXPERT could operate on him… while the reform he wants would put himself on a 3+ month waiting list in which case he would probably have died. THAT, is irony!

                • it is what I’m all about to a degree but I was answering the comment about a guy “needing” care being against Healthcare… but thanks for the thought and I think Kennedy is a HYPOCRITE as he crusades for “average” healthcare for all but gets FAR ABOVE AVERAGE HEALTHCARE for himself.

                • The guy who needs health care isn’t against health care – he opposes a reform that would make his current situation better by preventing the loss of insurance in the event of job loss.  

                  <

                  p>As to Kennedy?  Like I said, he’s rich, he can afford top-notch care, and there’s nothing hypocritical about him choosing his treatment options so that his own best interests are served.

                • The guy in question has fortitude even though his best interests (at the moment) could be contrary to what he thinks is right.

                  <

                  p>Kennedy is the classic HYPOCRITE who preaches about PUBLIC schools while he sends his own kids to PRIVATE schools and more examples which I too tired to list.

                  <

                  p>We disagree and that’s that!

                • Kennedy does preach that we need a strong public education system, and he’s right, we absolutely need that.  Public education is for those folks who can’t afford private schools, and it should be a good system.

                  <

                  p>But again, being rich, he can afford to send his kids to private school, while I can’t afford that.  So I thank him for championing public education, since my daughter can at least get a decent enough education so she can go to college and get a decent job when she graduates.  Hypocrisy?  Not at all…

                • I thought public School was for learning and I didn’t realize the public alternative for things exists only for people who can’t afford the private version. I feel stupid as I send my 3 youngest to public school even though I could afford private school. My parents sent myself and my 3 siblings to private schools because the public schools in Dorchester SUCKED and were DANGEROUS and had nothing to do with being able to afford it (since our only income was his Deer Island Prison Guard pay and that doesn’t buy much private school).

                  <

                  p>

                  Public education is for those folks who can’t afford private schools, and it should be a good system.

                • Once again, probably without intending to, you have made the progressive case.  We need to get to the point where even those with the money and abilities to go elsewhere are perfectly happy to stay in the public system because the public system is at least as good as any private school.  (There will always be those who opt for private schools for religious reasons and that’s certainly their right.)  If Kennedy were saying that public schools, or for that matter the current health system, were just fine and dandy while he goes and takes advantage of better options, that would be hypocritical, but he isn’t.  He’s acknowledging that he’s had a lot of advantages in life and is working hard to figure out how everyone can access the care and services his own circumstances get for him.

                  <

                  p>I hope that in addition to sending your children to public school that you are an involved parent to help make their schools the best they can be.  I’m sorry the Dorchester system had those problems, but that is exactly what those of us who support public education want to fix.

                • Well done BMGers! Silvers stars all around for infinite patience, especially to patriots JohnT and Christopher. Fabulous stuff, in MHO.  

                • Believe it or not I would be happy if private schools did not exist due to public school being so good. But that is a “societal” problem and not an educational problem. You Christopher, like m, went to private school. Were the teachers, the books and the classrooms really that much better than the public schools? Mine were not. What was different was discipline problems were dealt with swiftly. Underperforming students were not “passed” and in fact were thrown out of school. The students did their homework. The parents of the kids were “invested” in their kids’ and supported them in many ways. I believe the partial success of the public Charter Schools is because they have adopted some of those principles (and principals). The reason I send my kids to public school now is my town shares many of those factors that make private schools a success. They have a very intolerant view on violence, on disorderly students and the community as a whole dedicates their time to the kids. I have been saying for a long time (and here on BMG) that no amount of money will fix the public school system (mainly the inner cities and low income areas) because these systems are not failing because o the building/books/teachers… they fail because of the culture of the students/families that go there.

                  <

                  p>As for your comments about it being ok for Teddy to push for helping people but let his own kids (and his own cancer) to be addressed by the “best money can buy)… I think that’s a great argument for capitalism since life shouldn’t be “as good” for poor people as it is for rich people otherwise why would anyone want to be rich (and work hard)?

                  <

                  p>Lastly, concerning “involved” parent I can assure you that I have been a very active parent for all 5 kids. They have enjoyed great academic success (full scholarship to undergrad and Law School) and general success (23 year old has just returned from 3rd World tour for his band and leaves Friday for his 13th US tour) while the youngies excel in their classes. My wife is on 2 of our 5 Parent Teacher Groups (PTGs) while I am on one PTG board as well as the being the “Education Czar” of the NPO which oversees the entire town’s education (including the schools and adults) and have had the Worcester DA’s Outreach program in three times to present about Internet Safety and Cyber/school bullying… We attend all our school events and fund raisers, even the schools which our kids don’t go to. I personally developed the websites for free for 3 of the town school PTGs and of course I donate substantial money to all the PTGs. So yes, I am involved and am quite proud of it.

                • I basically agree with everything you say here on education.  I would love for public schools to adhere to rigorous academic and discipline standards.  At least at the time I attended I do believe the academic side of my private school was better than my local public high school.  I had just been to public junior high that was lucky to fund even core courses, so money was definitely in play as well.

                  <

                  p>I just fundamentally disagree with your Kennedy health paragraph however.  Life is overall going to be better if you can afford the finer things, but health care in my view is a human right.  I don’t mind coming right out and saying that I believe that should be exempt from the laws of capitalism.

                • I will also admit my view on education only covers the majority of cases as I am sure there are some public systems which have inferior teachers, books and classrooms. But my point is Newton High School is one of the oldest and decrepit high schools in the state and enjoys some of the smartest students int he state. I have already posted here a few weeks ago that there is no correlation between school funding and academic results but I would wager there is a lightning clear correlation between education and family culture.

                  <

                  p>We can disagree on healthcare being a human right but I would also ask “what’s next on the human right” list… housing, wealth, jobs, sex…

      • Just our brothers and sisters.  It would be great if we could all take care of ourselves, but then reality kicks in.  One of the key purposes of government is to promote the GENERAL welfare.  Providing health care for everyone falls into this category.

        • but you don’t have to take my word for it. You can take the word of the founders.

          <

          p>

          “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

          “[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

          “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

          “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

          “The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

          “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

          There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined – unlike most modern interpretations!

          Admittedly, Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders. These two were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. So let’s look at another Founder’s opinion-Alexander Hamilton who historically saw it in a somewhat looser vain.

          “This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

          Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless.  In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

          “No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

          In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore-unconstitutional.

          From the proverbial horses mouths to your own eyes-the all-encompassing General Welfare Clause is not as all encompassing as our current “leaders” would have us believe.  In no way does that one phrase grant unlimited power to the Federal government rather it pertains only to those enumerated powers that can and ought to be applied universally and in general to the several states.

          Now compare what you just read above from the Founders themselves to a Supreme Court ruling in 1976 in Buckley vs Valeo.

          “(the General Welfare clause is) a grant of power, the scope of which is quite expansive, particularly in view of the enlargement of power by the Necessary and Proper Clause ….It is for Congress to declare which expenditures will promote the general welfare… Whether the chosen means appear “bad” or “unwise” or “unworkable” is to us irrelevant; Congress has concluded that the means are “necessary and proper” to promote the general welfare, and we thus decline to find this legislation without the grant of power in Art. I Sec. 8.”   Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 US 1, 90-91 emphasis added.

          • Where the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress, it allows them to raise an army and a navy – no mention of air force or marines in there, right?  Should those two branches of the service be dropped as unconstitutional?

            • The USMC predates both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and is a Department of the Navy.  So they were covered under the original Constitution. Wouldn’t want to let History get in the way of your argument.

              <

              p>Also the Air Force was a part of the United States Army as the Army Air Corps until the late 1940s.  As such I think it’s covered.

              • Let’s assume that it is in fact 110% unconstitutional.  That doesn’t mean we are SOL.  The constitution is able to be amended.  Does anyone imagine that there would be much of a problem amending the constitution to fit in the US Air Force?  Who would oppose such an amendment?

          • I’ll freely admit to being a much looser constructionist.  My own philosophy is that anything done in pursuance of any one or more of the six preambulatory goals (form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty) is fair game, albeit with plenty of room to debate on the merits how much a given proposal may accomplish any of this.  The only really enforceable limits being those found in sections 9 and 10 of Article I or the Bill of Rights and certain subsequent amendments.

            <

            p>I must say I see some disingenuousness here, definitely on the part of Hamilton and maybe on the part of Madison.  We know Madison definitely started closer to Hamilton and moved closer to Jefferson over time.  Madison originally was among those saying we didn’t need a Bill of Rights, but then ended up being their prime mover in the House.  He had also proposed giving Congress the power to nullify state laws.  Hamilton barely tolerated the existence of states and proceded to do everything in his power as Secretary of the Treasury to create a strong central government.  Early Marshall Court decisions abetted this trend and with SCOTUS eventually coming around to the New Deal, I would say that ship has sailed.  The Federalist Papers do have value as to the insights of a couple of key players at the Federal Convention, but keep in mind they were engaged in some spinning to persuade skeptics that the central government wouldn’t be THAT bad.  As for Jefferson, he’s entitled to his opinions, but he really didn’t participate in this process.  I’ll say about Jefferson what I say about St. Paul with regard to Christianity.  Namely, he’s entitled to his opinions and so am I.

            <

            p>I think the paragraph you cited from Buckley v. Valeo pretty much matches my thinking.  Since it is the Supreme Court I think we have to acknowledge it’s legal validity vis-a-vis personal letters and essays.  As John Marshall once famously put it: “It is emphatically the province and the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”

Archives