Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted by logtroll
I see... there are no limits, then.
No, according to Madison, the author of it, the clause, like the rest of our government is limited. To limit our government is why they wrote our Constitution.
I forgot to amend this note previously:* Madison did not write the Constitution. He proposed numerous provisions of it, many of which were debated, discarded, adopted and/or modified by a group of individuals at the Constitutional Convention, which eventually produced a proposal that was ratified by the legislatures of the various States. He participated in most of the convention along with fifty or so other individuals. His opinion, therefore, of its meaning and purpose is... one opinion. Persuasive, perhaps, but most assuredly not definitive. There were literally hundreds of others whose opinions affected the adoption and interpretation of the words contained in it. (Remember the Federalist papers? What was that all about?)
I did not say that Madison was the sole author of our Constitution! What I did say was that he was the author of the general Welfare clause. Then you make the mistake of saying;
Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
which eventually produced a proposal that was ratified by the legislatures of the various States.
Our Constitution was not ratified by the state legislatures! Natioonal Archives
Quote
On September 17, 1787, a majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention approved the documents over which they had labored since May. After a farewell banquet, delegates swiftly returned to their homes to organize support, most for but some against the proposed charter. Before the Constitution could become the law of the land, it would have to withstand public scrutiny and debate. The document was "laid before the United States in Congress assembled" on September 20. For 2 days, September 26 and 27, Congress debated whether to censure the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for exceeding their authority by creating a new form of government instead of simply revising the Articles of Confederation. They decided to drop the matter. Instead, on September 28, Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions in each state. Article VII stipulated that nine states had to ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect. He participated in most of the convention along with fifty or so other individuals.
Our Constitution was not ratified by the state legislatures! It was ratified by special conventions called for the purpose of ratifying our Constitution. Madison did not participate in most of the convention, he participated in ALL of it! He was one of the few delegates to it that was there every day that the convention met. Was Madison persuasive? Of course he was. He was the author of the Virginia Plan, which was the plan that our Constitution is based on. Yes, I do remember The Federalist Papers. I also remember that they were written to convince the people of the various states, originally New York but then were used in other states, to support the ratification of our Constitution. It was in 1810 that The Federalist Papers as we know them today were published as a book. It was after The Federalist Papers were published as a book that there use to interpret our Constitution began. That is what The Federalist Papers were all about.

Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
Which brings me to my second point: Apparently, friend, you didn't follow the link I provided, so don't understand the definition of "sophistry". It is a fallacious mode of argumentation; specifically, "the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving." It is sometimes referred to as "specious reasoning." When you say, "To determine what they are it is best to read what the author of the clause, James Madison, said about it." and that "In that [Hamilton] did not participate in the debates of the clause his opinion of it not relevant." - that is an example of specious reasoning or sophistry. It is full of logical fallacies (e.g., appeal to authority), and omissions (e.g., that the only discussions/debates were those recorded by Madison).
That Madison did write the general Welfare clause is not a fallacious argument, it is a fact. That Hamilton didn't participate in the debate of the general Welfare clause means that he did not have any influence on the writing of it. That is not a fallacious argument, it is a fact. Is not asking about The Federalist Papers an appeal to authority? Why, yes it is! There were other delegates to the Constitutional Convention who took notes. Robert Yates also took notes of the convention. His notes are informative but since he did not attend the entire convention they are not a complete record of the convention. Madison did attend the entire convention which makes his notes a complete record of it.

Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
Now, I will also admit that I love it, which is not charitable of me, when you write things that prove my point, but disprove your own. It's a habit of yours that I take guilty pleasure in.
Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
What you apparently cannot comprehend is that our Constitution was written to create a limited central government! They realized that the weak central government of the Articles of Confederation wasn't working. Did our Constitution expand the role of the central government? Yes, but not as much as you erroneously think it did. [.]
https://uslawessentials.atavist.com/the-constitution-and-the-distribution-of-power-clone-19pbj
Quote
To each branch, the Constitution assigns certain powers. No branch of government may exceed the powers granted to it by the Constitution. By assigning powers to each branch, the Constitution limits the powers of the federal government and also tries to prevent any branch from becoming too powerful.
The checks and balances in our Constitution were put there to limit the power of our government.
Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
Which was exactly my point. You then reload the shotgun and point it at your... well, you get the metaphor - and assert "They were extremely reluctant to give the new central government any power." Who is this "they", Kemo sahbee? And why did they do exactly that, if it was not their intention? Maybe you meant to say, "some of them"? Or, "some argued against it"?
The "they" I was referring to were the members of the Constitutional Convention. Those men had just lived through a war to get rid of the powerful British government. The idea that they would create a powerful government for them to live under is ludicrous!

Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
What chaps my hide is your broad generalizations and surety that you are "right" about things, when you are not, and even when you are proved in error, refusal to recognize it as such. Yes, there are limitations on the central government - I've never argued elsewise - but the argument that "To limit our government is why they wrote our Constitution." Is. Just. Not. True.
My "broad generalizations" have been backed up with citations. My "surety" that I am right is also backed up with citations. In this reply I have shown, with citations, where you were in error NW. Your "proof" that I am in error is your claim that you are. Your error in saying the state legislatures ratified our Constitution shows that you are not as knowledgeable about it as you think you are. Then my link to and quote fromThe Constitution and the Distribution of Power shows that our Constitution was written to limit the power of our government. So, yes my saying our Constitution was written to limit the power of our government
IS TRUE!

Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
* I originally mistyped that as "Peeviously". I thought that was an apt descriptor, and a freudian slip. Made me laugh.
I see you are still riding your high horse, NW. Perhaps you should get off your horse before you fall and hurt yourself.

The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary