The American Spectator

james wilson| 8.30.11 @ 10:43AM

Regrettably, Brooks is far too quick to agree with Miller that our political interests are the same, except by degree. As von Mises essentially said, the compromise of water and sewage is just more sewage.

log in or register to reply

Have you considered| 8.30.11 @ 11:46AM

Wow, just wow. That a guy, from what I thought was a conservative organization, is agreeing that some kind of safety net is the goal of conservatives is shocking to me.

OK, so exactly Which Enumerated Power is used for these safety nets? Commerce? Defense? Post Roads? Patents? Naturalization?

Oh ya, there isn't one.

Here are James Madison's words in regards to Article 1 powers, and the sentence that includes the words general welfare (Federalist #41):

""It has been urged and echoed,that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, andexcises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger
proof could be given of the distress under which these writerslabor for objections, than their stooping to such amisconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of thepowers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an
authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroythe freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?""...

""For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to beincluded in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.""

log in or register to reply

sinanju| 8.30.11 @ 12:04PM

Here we go again. A "guaranteed national income" and guaranteed health care should be an all-American goal. We've just seen what two generations of THAT has wrought in Merrie England, not to mention our own ghettos, trailer parks and Indian reservations... Arthur Brooks needs to work on his delivery. He's got to be less cerebral and more pithy and to-the-point. Pound those conservative First Principles into the ground or give up and go cry in the greenroom.

He screws the pooch when he pre-emptively concedes the argument to Ratigan. That's a basic debate-team no-no. Once you've done that, you've thrown the match and the only thing left is the terms of your surrender.

Brooks should have taken that rancid "pre-birth lottery" concept and kicked it out of the park. The idea that government should make everybody equal is at the heart of Marxism. The very phrase could be straight out of Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron", Brooks could have ridiculed Dylan over that one.

He also screws the pooch when he concedes the issue of government-run education to Ratigan. "Just do it better" is another white flag coming out of the gate. State-run education removes any competitive incentive to quality and forces kids into institutions where the usual assortment of leftist special interests (sex-peddlers, gays, socialists, eco-loons, race-hustlers, man-haters, muslims, etc.) can have at them and fill their captive minds with their propaganda. School vouchers allow parents to escape that rotten system and force the publik skools to improve or die.

Mr. Brooks could be a great debater. He just needs some expert coaching. At least Ratigan was willing to actually debate the issues. The likes of a Stephen Colbert, Ed Schultz, or Bill Maher just want to go for cheap point-scoring and laugh lines.

log in or register to reply