lonewolf wrote:Hawk wrote:lonewolf wrote:
1. Then you should have replied on that thread and not OT'ed this one.
2. No, I do believe that James Madison and I are right and you are wrong!
It was a lame unsubstantiated comeback.
I don't like lobbying any more than you do. If you want to address lobbying in the Constitution, you need to look at Sections 4 & 5. The appropriations (taxing & spending by the government) listed in Section 8 have absolutely nothing to do with it.
1. "Then you should have replied on that thread and not OT'ed this one".
I DID reply in that thread, just wanted to reiterate my points...As I clearly stated, "my post".
2. I believe Alexander Hamilton and I are right and you are wrong.
"lame comeback". It was not a comeback at all. My case was already stated and I stand by it. There was no need for further explanation. No comeback necessary.
Besides, the thread is down to us again and no one else is reading it or cares.
Here's what Hamilton had to say about the general welfare clause it in Federalist 23. It seems that he had little faith in the diligence of government as well:
Defective as the present Confederation has been proved to be, this principle appears to have been fully recognized by the framers of it; though they have not made proper or adequate provision for its exercise. Congress have an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and money; to govern the army and navy; to direct their operations. As their requisitions are made constitutionally binding upon the States, who are in fact under the most solemn obligations to furnish the supplies required of them, the intention evidently was that the United States should command whatever resources were by them judged requisite to the "common defense and general welfare."
It was presumed that a sense of their true interests, and a regard to the dictates of good faith, would be found sufficient pledges for the punctual performance of the duty of the members to the federal head.
The experiment has, however, demonstrated that this expectation was ill-founded and illusory; and the observations, made under the last head, will, I imagine, have sufficed to convince the impartial and discerning, that there is an absolute necessity for an entire change in the first principles of the system; that if we are in earnest about giving the Union energy and duration, we must abandon the vain project of legislating upon the States in their collective capacities; we must extend the laws of the federal government to the individual citizens of America; we must discard the fallacious scheme of quotas and requisitions, as equally impracticable and unjust. The result from all this is that the Union ought to be invested with full power to levy troops; to build and equip fleets; and to raise the revenues which will be required for the formation and support of an army and navy, in the customary and ordinary modes practiced in other governments.
You are wrong again. However I will explain.
First off, he was talking about the Articles of the Confederation. And it was THAT "experiment" he talking about. And he went on to explain how a more powerful federal government, under the new and better constitution would resolve the inadequacies.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the inadequacy of it was described in the last sentence of the first paragraph (you placed) from Federalist paper 23.
He was telling you to solve this problem that, "Congress have an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and money."
He further explains in the second paragraph that the "experiment" of the Confederation by "observation" should convince everyone that the "laws of the federal government must be extended to the individual citizens of America.
Hamilton is clearly explaining the need for a strong federal government. One in which they can go directly to the individual citizens when they need to. Rather than going to the states. Going to the states is where they found, insufficient pledges and a lack of good faith. He found it impractical to legislate the states in their collective capacities. Therefore the constitution would expand the laws to individuals.
Rather than requisition money and men from the states. Go directly to the citizens and collect what is needed for defence and the general welfare of the WHOLE. That is what 23 is about.
BY THE WAY IS THIS A MUSIC SITE OR A PISSING CONTEST 
