- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
Constitutional Opinions
Obama vs. James Madison
In his inaugural address yesterday, President Barack Obama reframed the basis for action undertaken by the federal government. No longer is it right to ask whether a program is appropriate for Washington to take on. The only question is whether the program is effective.
"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end."
He forgets, never knew, or doesn't care that effectiveness has never been the first measure of a federal action. It is an important secondary measure once the constitutionality or appropriateness of an action has been determined. But as James Madison asked in Federalist 41:
"Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it? This is the first question." (Emphasis in original.)
When thinking of our federal government, the first question is and always has been whether that government has too much power -- that is, whether it is too big. Yesterday, Obama tossed that question aside in favor of building a government that "works." The Founding Fathers would be aghast. The people should be, too.
When the effectiveness of a federal action becomes the first and only question, trouble is not far behind. Just ask Barack Obama.
"The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security," Obama said in October of 2007. He has made clear that harsh interrogation techniques are unacceptable because they violate core American principles. So, regardless of whether they sometimes work, he will not authorize them based on principle.
Obama recognizes that mere effectiveness is not a sufficient measure of government action. Principles beyond the end justifying the means must apply -- except when it comes to saving us from the financial crisis. Obama is using the recession the same way he accused President Bush of using 9/11 -- as a catch-all crisis to justify vastly expanded federal powers. The question for Obama is, if it was wrong for Bush to do that, why is it now OK for Obama?
Comments
Leave a Comment
- Michael Ledeen on Iran and Democracy
- Tex Mess
- Obama's Vision Through History
Are you in a mob?
The Democrats say Obamacare opponents are a mob. Are they right?
Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Jason| 1.21.09 @ 6:22AM
Hitler's prison camps "worked", so I suppose they were justified.
http://www.rightklik.net/
El Wayne| 1.21.09 @ 10:35AM
Jason...don't be a boob. Hitler was a fascist nazgul. Our constitution totally different story.
Bilwick| 1.21.09 @ 10:43AM
Be that as it may, El Wayne, Jason's basic point remains valid. Tyranny can be judged good if you make "effectiveness" the primary criterion. In a free society, however, "effectiveness" cannot be the ultimate determinant of a government program's value. Of course, nothing in Obama's career, writings or spoekn words indicates any great interest in a free society.
Chris| 1.21.09 @ 12:28PM
"Efficient government" is the ultimate oxymoron. The utopian pursuit of it is the ultimate enemy of freedom.
JoshFranklin| 1.21.09 @ 1:24PM
Obama -- throughout his parochial experience -- has never worked in the private sector, so maybe he doesn't understand that virtually no State-run enterprise can match the efficiency of a private one.
Jeff Anderson| 1.21.09 @ 2:12PM
Mr. Cline fails to recognize that Obama loathes our Founders, no matter how often he cites them. Obama does not deem our Constitution as actually being valid so why expect him to bestow any honor or guidance from that document?
Michele San Pietro| 1.21.09 @ 3:20PM
Obama is no supporter of State-run companies. You can hear a lot of rhetorical nonsense in talk shows, but in the final analysis everyone knows America simply wouldn't exist without private enterprise.
Alan Brooks| 1.21.09 @ 3:42PM
agreed.
theres simply not enough honest people to make govt work.
but Palin, palin, palin. minutae, libtard screechiness. Halliburton. more minutae. Bush is Bad. ugh. Reagan wasnt "that great", even though he helped accelerate end of cold war. but you cant talk to these people
i wish i'd never been born.
Alan Brooks| 1.21.09 @ 3:45PM
wish i wasnt ex-lib, pwogwessives hate exlibs most.
caint hardly win for losin, you caint fight city hall. you...
Scott A Joseph, MD| 1.21.09 @ 4:14PM
Here's what's going to happen:
1) Obama will dismantle the Bush administration's antiterrorist protections.
2) A WMD attack will occur in a significant American city (I'm guessing Honolulu, from New Zealand---Kiwis stink at security and have warm ties with Islamofascists).
3) If this happens after July 4, it will obviously be on Obama's watch. He gets impeached, or, even better, gets politically emasculated.
4)Maybe we identify Islamofascist scum as scum at that point, and take off the kid gloves (including opening a jar of whupass on the Iranians and Saudis).
5) Republicans back in power for 30 years, as in after the Civil War (Cleveland was the only Dem during that time, and he was fairly Conservative).
The other possibility is that Obama finds his Conservative side. Real responsibility, as opposed to voting "present," tends to do that to you. (Unless you're Jimmy Carter. Even Clinton realized some responsibility, even if he approached it in his typically lame-o way.)
Either way, to paraphrase Harry Carey, Republicans win, Republicans win!
So be of good hope.
Ed | 1.21.09 @ 5:04PM
To paraphrase Madison, the Father of the Constitution, "I cannot endevor to place my finger on that section of the Constitution which authorizes charity". If I heard a national politician utter that sentence today, a tingle would go up my leg.
Alan Brooks| 1.21.09 @ 9:41PM
Madison might have discussed the 'defect of the good'; he did discuss the most important questions-- he and his mentor, whose name escapes me.
Alan Brooks| 1.21.09 @ 10:22PM
Witherspoon?
no, not reese witherspoon.
Baz| 1.24.09 @ 5:53PM
Obama's remarks have nothing whatever to do with tyranny. Tyranny is a separate question entirely.
Work needs doing, and since the private sector is either unwilling or unable to modernize our electrical grid (though they profit from it mightily), our schools (though they derive all their talent from them), our bridges (though national commerce depends on them), who is responsible? At least someone is stepping up to the plate to say "this must be done, and we will take responsibility for it."
Private corporations, as originally framed by the founding fathers, were supposed to be the vehicles for building infrastructure, public works, and providing financial support for the general economy. They were meant to be short-lived and purpose driven, as opposed to being the semi-permanent profit-driven bodies that they are now.
Since that role has been abandoned by the private sector, either we must empower the federal government to do these things, or determine that they do not need doing.
But if you still insist that taxation is some form of tyranny and you want a small government with little responsibility, you can look at small government/low public service countries like India, Thailand, Indonesia, Kenya, Sudan, where the lack of public investment cripples the economy and the government leaving them vulnerable to all sorts of sectarian unrest and social problems. And if that's what you want, maybe you should there.
Baz| 1.24.09 @ 5:58PM
"I think it the duty of farmers who are wealthier than others to give those less so the benefit of any improvements they can introduce, gratis."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Baz| 1.25.09 @ 12:40AM
Jeff--
"Obama does not deem our Constitution as actually being valid..."
He's a constitutional *scholar* having taught at one of the most prestigious schools in the country. Why would anyone spends of their life in scholarship of something that they think is not valid?
Rhetorical questions aside, how about something, *anything* to back up such a ludicrous, absurd, nonsensical statement?
It kills me when people speak so confidently of things they clearly know nothing about.
Shane| 2.26.09 @ 10:36AM
"Obama -- throughout his parochial experience -- has never worked in the private sector, so maybe he doesn't understand that virtually no State-run enterprise can match the efficiency of a private one." - Josh Franklin
No kidding. That's because most private businesses are dictatorships with the owner having final say in all decisions. Would you prefer that form of government for our nation? Sometimes I think you conservatives actually would.
qffcc| 8.13.09 @ 1:57AM
that's so cool!
This is an informative blog
taiwan
網頁設計
yeswecan| 8.27.09 @ 12:39PM
If Obama is such a "scholar" of our constitution then why is he so hellbent on ignoring it.Did he deem the American people were so stupid that no one would ask to see his birth certificate?He does not seem to care that he his under oath to protect it and abide by the guide lines it has set for the powers of government.Title 18,US Code Sec.2381 clearly states : In the presents of two or more witnesses of the same over act, or in a open court of law,if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office, you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason.Bush also did not defend the Constitution as in his own words ,"...the Constitution is just a g*ddamn piece of paper".These are the choice of people we Americans have to put in office.God bless America?You want to know where this country is heading ?Probably not but go to youtube and search FEMA coffins and try not to be surprised.
dropshippngwatch| 8.30.09 @ 11:48AM
Sales Replica Watches
Replica Watches Trade
Replica Watches
Replica Watch
Fake Watches
Replica Watches
Replica Watches
Replica Corum Watches
Replica D&G Watches
Replica De Witt Watches
Replica Ebel Watches
Replica Emporio Armani Watches
Replica Fendi Watches
Replica Ferrari Watches
Replica Fortis Watches
http://www.dropshippingwatch.com
nike dunks| 9.1.09 @ 9:40PM
Jordan Shoes
Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 12:37AM
Very good article written byWedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
ah
slewing ring| 10.18.09 @ 11:05PM
shanghai massage
turntable bearings