Comments on: Not Yours to Give by Davy Crockett http://www.juliasshaw.com/blog/2010/07/22/not-yours-to-give-by-davy-crockett/ Irrational Rocks Mon, 06 Sep 2010 13:28:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ray Henrie http://www.juliasshaw.com/blog/2010/07/22/not-yours-to-give-by-davy-crockett/#comment-15 Ray Henrie Mon, 06 Sep 2010 13:28:48 +0000 http://www.juliasshaw.com/blog/?p=162#comment-15 Robert Watkins, you need to study the meaning of welfare in the time of the writing of the constitution. The meaning was nothing like you say, but rather :James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.” So put your hand back in your pocket and get to work. Robert Watkins, you need to study the meaning of welfare in the time of the writing of the constitution. The meaning was nothing like you say, but rather :James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.” So put your hand back in your pocket and get to work.

]]> By: That government is best which governs least http://www.juliasshaw.com/blog/2010/07/22/not-yours-to-give-by-davy-crockett/#comment-14 That government is best which governs least Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:13:51 +0000 http://www.juliasshaw.com/blog/?p=162#comment-14 [...] reviewing the comments to my posting of Not Yours to Give by Davy Crockett I began to think of my favorite section from Thoreau’s Walden and Civil Disobedience. I [...] [...] reviewing the comments to my posting of Not Yours to Give by Davy Crockett I began to think of my favorite section from Thoreau’s Walden and Civil Disobedience. I [...]

]]> By: Julias Shaw http://www.juliasshaw.com/blog/2010/07/22/not-yours-to-give-by-davy-crockett/#comment-13 Julias Shaw Fri, 06 Aug 2010 13:43:08 +0000 http://www.juliasshaw.com/blog/?p=162#comment-13 True or not I strongly support the moral of this story. Libertarians such as myself are often forced to draw a distinction between what is legal and what is right when thinking about matters of government. This story does a good job of illustrating the libertarian point of view when it comes to government spending. True or not I strongly support the moral of this story. Libertarians such as myself are often forced to draw a distinction between what is legal and what is right when thinking about matters of government. This story does a good job of illustrating the libertarian point of view when it comes to government spending.

]]> By: Blaise Pascal http://www.juliasshaw.com/blog/2010/07/22/not-yours-to-give-by-davy-crockett/#comment-12 Blaise Pascal Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:09:51 +0000 http://www.juliasshaw.com/blog/?p=162#comment-12 I direct your attention to "Not Yours To Give" fable re-examined</a>, which notes, among other things, that Crockett was not present for debate on the bill concerning the war widow (which passed), that Crockett was not a member of Congress when the vote on the fire in Alexandria (not Georgetown) came up, and that when issues of charity came up in Congress, Crockett would examine each case individually. Furthermore, his major issue in Congress was to petition the Government to give or sell cheaply Federal lands to his constituents already squatting on them. I direct your attention to “Not Yours To Give” fable re-examined, which notes, among other things, that Crockett was not present for debate on the bill concerning the war widow (which passed), that Crockett was not a member of Congress when the vote on the fire in Alexandria (not Georgetown) came up, and that when issues of charity came up in Congress, Crockett would examine each case individually. Furthermore, his major issue in Congress was to petition the Government to give or sell cheaply Federal lands to his constituents already squatting on them.

]]> By: Adrian Wible http://www.juliasshaw.com/blog/2010/07/22/not-yours-to-give-by-davy-crockett/#comment-11 Adrian Wible Wed, 28 Jul 2010 23:23:07 +0000 http://www.juliasshaw.com/blog/?p=162#comment-11 Outstanding ... great story. Thanks for sharing. Outstanding … great story. Thanks for sharing.

]]> By: Robert Watkins http://www.juliasshaw.com/blog/2010/07/22/not-yours-to-give-by-davy-crockett/#comment-10 Robert Watkins Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:48:22 +0000 http://www.juliasshaw.com/blog/?p=162#comment-10 A lovely story, based on a false premise. The US constitution explicitly grants the Congress the right to spend money (and tax to pay for) on the General Welfare (meaning health and wellbeing) of the Union. That includes, for example, disaster relief funding such as the appropriation to the victims of the Georgetown fire. It is also the constitutional basis for Roosevelt's New Deal, as adjudicated by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, Davy Crockett apparently ('cording to Wikipedia, anyway) voted on relief measures on a case-by-case basis, sometimes for, sometimes against, and did no show a pattern of voting against at the end of his Congressional career. These links indicate that the story is a fabrication, with very large holes in it: http://crockettincongress.blogspot.com/2009/10/not-yours-to-give-fable-re-examined.html and http://www.constitution.org/cons/ann_toplovich_crockett.htm A lovely story, based on a false premise.

The US constitution explicitly grants the Congress the right to spend money (and tax to pay for) on the General Welfare (meaning health and wellbeing) of the Union. That includes, for example, disaster relief funding such as the appropriation to the victims of the Georgetown fire. It is also the constitutional basis for Roosevelt’s New Deal, as adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, Davy Crockett apparently (‘cording to Wikipedia, anyway) voted on relief measures on a case-by-case basis, sometimes for, sometimes against, and did no show a pattern of voting against at the end of his Congressional career.

These links indicate that the story is a fabrication, with very large holes in it: http://crockettincongress.blogspot.com/2009/10/not-yours-to-give-fable-re-examined.html and http://www.constitution.org/cons/ann_toplovich_crockett.htm

]]>