OVERVIEW of Judge Narragansett's New Constitution Project

[Admin]

OVERVIEW of Judge Narragansett's New Constitution Project
http://tinyurl.com/Narragansett-Overview
http://atlasshruggedcelebrationday.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=2.0
(Original Message) Sent: 3/9/2003 3:37 PM

• The rectangle of light in the acres of a farm was the window of the library of Judge Narragansett. He sat at a table, and the light of his lamp fell on the copy of an ancient document. He had marked and crossed out the contradictions in its statements that had once been the cause of its destruction. He was now adding a new clause to its pages: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade …"

The inspiration for this discussion board comes from the closing pages of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (see above). I refer to this as:

“Judge Narragansett’s New Constitution Project"

• 
  Because the Confederate Constitution ALREADY CONTAINS some of the changes that an Objectivist would find desirable, I decided that it would be proper to START with a combination of the Confederate Constitution and the US Constitution. (The distinctions are clearly marked.)
  
  Each Article & Amendment in the old Constitution can be reviewed in turn and rewritten or rejected with the discussion thread serving as a record of the reasoning involved.  
  
  To facilitate this effort, I have broken the various sections of the Constitution into separate discussion threads. I have also reproduced the Bill of Rights as the first 10 amendments as was done in the Original constitution, rather than incorporating them into Article I, Section IX as was done in the Confederate Constitution. From my 21st Century vantage point, I think they deserve a separate distinction rather than being buried amongst other items.
  
  Using the Confederate Constitution as a starting point is also a way to honor the efforts of the Confederacy to preserve capitalism and Jefferson’s view of freedom, property rights and the check on central government--an effort that preceded the publication of Atlas Shrugged by 96 years.
  
  
  Dennis Wilson
  

On another discussion board in a thread started by Isaac titled simply “government”, Alex brought up the subject of a generic constitution:


>>I think it would be interesting to have a conference of Objectivist scholars with the purpose of creating the most rational "generic" constitution possible. You could start by outlining individual freedom with much greater clarity than our current constitution.

I think it would also be wise to have an attached glossary that defines every single word in the constitution and every single word in the glossary as well. Each word would need to be debated for exactness of definition to discourage misinterpretation and to make the constitution epistemologically sound.

The conference could also be used as a think tank for the development of ideas to preserve the constitution and protect it from special interest groups. You could even have Objectivists from all over the world send in possible ideas via the Internet for the best possible government set up. The process would be very time consuming, but who else is going to form a constitution based on Objectivist principles?

After completion, the constitution could be made available to countries that are forming new governments or altering their existing one. Even if the new constitution is never used in the United States, the ideas it contains may have an affect on future amendments or the formation of constitutions in other countries. Just think how difficult and unlikely it is that countries in turmoil and overthrow are going to form a completely rational constitution. They could use the assistance of philosophers who have lived in the relative freedom of the United States and have had the time to consider such ideas. Objectivists would benefit by seeing the principles extended to other countries and maybe the formation of a country that could become an example for the rest of the world.

Alex<<

And it was quickly endorsed by Lone_Wolf:

>>Alex...

I've had similar ideas in the past but never elaborated on them because I thought I would have to do all the work or it would never get done.  This is one of the best ideas I've ever heard of!  

It would be fun, educational for all concerned and potentially help make the world a better place...if not revolutionize it.

I'll bet there would be a large demand from like-minded publishers (and some not so like-minded) to publish it.  There would be many contributors from people we have yet to know.

My suggestion is to create an outline using our own constitution (a pretty good starting point), ask for suggestions for additions and deletions on the outline, and have individuals or groups start working or each part. You would need some rules/guidelines to go by so people stay the course.

There would have to be a final decision maker that would decide on the final exact wording..."Editor-in-Chief", someone who is very literate and very hard-core Objectivist.

The Wolf

PS:  Count me in!<<
To which I replied:

Alex and Lone Wolf,

If you are going to embark on a project of writing a generic constitution, you may want to study how the Confederates States of America wrote their constitution by modifying the original. (Lincoln just ignored the original ... which is another problem to be considered...see the recent book "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo

The following site contains numerous CSA documents: http://www.civilwarhome.com/csa.htm


The version of the CSA Constitution is clearly marked to show the differences between it and the US Constitution (for instance, the president could only serve one 6 year term, thereby eliminating the re-election mess) and there is another document with background information describing how the CSA Constitution came to be.

Additional excellent articles by DiLorenzo are available at http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo-arch.html

 Caution: As you become more familiar with the truth about the War of Secession (it was NOT a "civil" war, the South did not want to take over the government, they wanted to secede from it) and how Lincoln destroyed our original Jeffersonian form of government  (something you will NOT get from the government run public school system), you may become a Confederate States rebel and sympathizer like I have become. <grin>

Dennis

Here is the text and a link to the South Carolina's declaration of Secession:.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/scordinance.htm

South Carolina Ordinance Of Secession

        AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
        We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved.
        Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.

There is a part about slavery in the Confederate States Constitution. The following partial Overview mentions that along with a number of constitutional changes, some of which eventually became part of what we have today. Some of the changes might be desirable for a generic constitution, especially the deliberate elimination of "general welfare". (!) Please note the changes (prohibitions) regarding "protective tariff" and "internal improvements", very much laissez-faire capitalism and desirable today.

Dennis

http://www.civilwarhome.com/confederacyoverview.htm

Overview of the Confederacy

    Its ideology far more conservative than revolutionary, the nation of seceded Southern states faced a paradox in maintaining a centralized government comprised of entities whose very motivation for departing the Union was their objection to federal authority. On February 4, 1861, representatives from the seven states Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas-that had already seceded from the United States met in Montgomery, Alabama, to form a new republic. On February 8, the convention announced the establishment of the Confederate States of America and declared itself the provisional Congress.

       The following day, Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens were unanimously chosen provisional president and vice president, two men moderate enough, it was hoped, to convince the eight other reluctant slave states to join the Confederacy. A committee spent the next five weeks composing a national constitution, which was approved on March I 1. The document closely followed the U.S. Constitution-including its Bill of Rights-with a few notable differences. Language promoting "the general welfare" was omitted, while the right to own slaves was explicitly guaranteed although foreign slave trade was forbidden.

       The president, serving a single six-year term, was given line-item veto power over the budget, and his cabinet awarded nonvoting seats in Congress. To guarantee Southerners their much-desired states' rights, the federal government had no authority to levy protective tariffs, make internal improvements, or overrule state court decisions, while states had the right to sustain their own armies and enter into separate agreements with one another, and [states] were given greater power in amending the constitution. Although there was a provision for a federal Supreme Court, Southern legislators could never agree on its configuration or even the wisdom of its establishment, and so the Confederacy lacked a high court throughout its existence. The provisional Congress sent three envoys to Washington to try to negotiate a final, peaceful split from the United States, although at the same time preparing for combat by establishing an army.


Because the Confederate Constitution ALREADY CONTAINS some of the changes that an Objectivist would find desirable, I suggest that it would be proper to START with the Confederate Constitution and simply negate the part on slavery and remove references to God, rather than starting with today’s US Constitution and eliminating or rewriting all the amendments since the Bill of Rights amendments. Each amendment in the US Constitution could be reviewed in turn and rewritten or rejected with the discussion thread serving as a record of the reasoning involved.  In addition to adding the phrase from Atlas Shrugged: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade …", the Right of Secession for any purpose, including nullifying Federal power should be explicit, and the power of the government to print, coin or regulate money and to regulate banking should be explicitly prohibited. There are many lessons from the 19th and 20th Century that can be cited for justification.

To facilitate this effort, I have broken the various sections of the Constitution into separate discussion threads on a separate message board dedicated to the New Constitution project. I have also reproduced the Bill of Rights as the first 10 amendments as was done in the Original constitution, rather than incorporating them into Article I, Section IX as was done in the Confederate Constitution. From my 21st Century vantage point, I think they deserve a separate distinction rather than being buried amongst other items.

Using the Confederate Constitution as a starting point is also a way to honor the efforts of the Confederacy to preserve capitalism and Jefferson’s view of freedom, property rights and the check on central government--an effort that preceded the publication of Atlas Shrugged by 96 years.

Dennis Wilson
 

[Admin]

 Sent: 3/9/2003 3:41 PM
 
 
This thread should be used for general items about the New Constitution Project, rather than specific items that should be in their particular threads.

[Admin]

 Sent: 3/9/2003 3:43 PM
Copied from the original posting:
From: kristopher_d Sent: 2/1/2003 3:50 PM

While a study of past government documents is very important in discovering flaws in past thinking, it is fairly obvious that authoritarians (any who support government action beyond the defence of the individual) will have core phillosophical flaws in their thinking.  As a Capitalist I expect more value will be gained from a study of corporate organizations.  Those who run for-profit corporations in a profitable manner do so for one very selfish reason, to make money.  The best of them do not use force to gain profit, but run their companies in a way which provides the possible service to their target market.  People forget that governments are nothing more than vendors of rights protection.  They foret that they have a choice of vendors, or of even refusing to buy from a vendor.  If the products on the market fail to perform to their cost, it is the responsability of the consumer to refuse to buy such products.  If government is treated in the same manner, those who run it will have to run a very lean, very non-invasive defence machine, or they will lose their jobs.  Term limits is actually a source of many problems we face today.  After a president has won his second election, he has nothing to lose, so long as he appears to remain within the law.  He is free to do what ever he wants with government because there is no way he can keep the job any longer than the end of his current term.  If there were a possibility of keeping the job longer, he would have to continue to satisfy a majority of the population if he wanted to keep his job.  If he were up for annual review, like most CEO's, he would have to perform consitently, not just in election years.  The value of personal gain is the most important motivating factor for performance in any situation.  Build that into the constitution, and elected officials will have to behave themselves if they want to continue to make money in their profession.
 

[Admin]

 Sent: 4/17/2003 11:34 AM
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=353
The Free Market   [The Mises Institute monthly]
Volume 10, Number 6; June 1992

The Confederate Constitution

By Randall G. Holcombe

Special interests have long used the democratic political process to produce legislation for their own private benefit, and the U.S. Constitution contains flaws that make this easier. One attempt to remedy these flaws was the Confederate Constitution.

The Confederate Constitutional Convention opened in February 1861. Robert Barnwell Rhett of South Carolina, called the "Father of Secession" for initiating his state's breakoff from the union, thought that the U.S. model was the best. The other 50 delegates agreed. He nominated Howell Cobb, a Georgia attorney and former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, to preside over the meeting, which was completed by March I 1, 1861. By the end of that year, 13 states had ratified the new Constitution.

In broad outline, the Confederate Constitution is an amended U.S. Constitution. Even on slavery, there is little difference. Whereas the U.S. Constitution ended the importation of slaves after 1808, the Confederate Constitution simply forbade it. Both constitutions allowed slave ownership, of course.

In fact, slavery only became a constitutional issue after the war had begun. In his 1861 inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln said, "Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican administration their property [is] to be endangered.... I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the United States where it exists.... I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

But the differences in the documents, small as they are, are extremely important. The people who wrote the Southern Constitution had lived under the federal one. They knew its strengths, which they tried to copy, and its weaknesses, which they tried to eliminate.

One grave weakness in the U.S. Constitution is the "general welfare" clause, which the Confederate Constitution eliminated.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

The Confederate Constitution gave Congress the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, for revenue necessary to pay the debts,  provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States..."

The Southern drafters thought the general welfare clause was an open door for any type of government intervention. They were, of course, right.

Immediately following that clause in the Confederate Constitution is a clause that has no parallel in the U.S. Constitution. It affirms strong support for free trade and opposition to protectionism: "but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importation from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry."

The use of tariffs to shelter domestic industries from foreign competition had been an important issue since tariffs were first adopted in 1816. Southern states had borne heavy costs since tariffs protected northern manufacturing at the expense of Southern imports. The South exported agricultural commodities and imported almost all the goods it consumed, either from abroad or from Northern states. Tariffs drastically raised the cost of goods in the Southern states, while most of the tariff revenue was spent in the North.

The Confederate Constitution prevents Congress from appropriating money "for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce" except for improvement to facilitate waterway navigation. But "in all such cases, such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby, as may be necessary to pay for the costs and expenses thereof..."

"Internal improvements" were pork-barrel public works projects. Thus the Southern Founders sought to prohibit general revenues from being used for the benefit of special interests. Tax revenues were to be spent for programs that benefited everyone, not a specific segment of the population.

In another attack on pork-barrel spending, the Confederate Constitution gave the President a line-item veto. "The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill." Anticipating the U.S. Constitutional amendment that would become necessary after Franklin Roosevelt's four terms, the President himself would serve only one, six-year term.

In many circumstances, Confederate appropriations required a two-thirds majority rather than a simple majority. Without the President's request, for example, a two-thirds majority of both Houses would have been necessary for Congress to spend any money. This one provision, if adopted in the U.S. Constitution, would eliminate much of the spending that goes on today.

The Confederate Founders also tried to make sure that there would be no open-ended commitments or entitlement programs in the Confederate States. "All bills appropriating money shall specify...the exact amount of each appropriation, and the purposes for which it is made," said the document. "And Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered." Such a provision would have eliminated the cost-overrun," a favorite boondoggle of today's government contractors.

The Confederate Constitution also eliminated omnibus spending bills by requiring all legislation to "relate to but one subject," which had to be "expressed in the title." There would be no "Christmas-tree" appropriations bills or hidden expenditures.

These changes would have had a profound effect in keeping government small and unintrusive. Their inclusion demonstrates much wisdom on the part of Confederate statesmen in improving on the Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, the federal government was not willing to let them give their system a try.

---------

Randall G. Holcombe, an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, teaches economics at Florida State University.  holcombe@garnet.acns.fsu.edu. Read an interview with him in the Austrian Economics Newsletter.
 

[Admin]

 Sent: 6/29/2003 2:15 PM
Here is an interesting commentary on the European Union's proposed Constitution.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-murray062303.asp

June 23, 2003, 8:45 a.m.
Wish Fulfillment
The EU Constitution lays down NGOs’ ideals in stone.

By Iain Murray
 
 

 When former French president Valery Giscard d'Estaing was first minted as president of the European constitutional convention, he suggested he might be Europe's Ben Franklin, a senior figure lending his authority to the process. Now that the draft constitution has been published, he has changed his tune. He now compares himself to Thomas Jefferson, ignoring the inconvenient fact that Jefferson was not present at the drafting of the U.S. Constitution.

"I tried to play a little bit the role that Jefferson played, which was to instill leading ideas into the system," he told the New York Times. "Jefferson was a man who wrote and produced elements that consolidated the Constitution." Giscard's historical ambiguity aside, Thomas Jefferson would surely be distressed to have his name associated with the draft document: That champion of limited government would be appalled at the paternalist, centralizing, one-sided ideas that the EU constitution embodies. It reads more like an NGO wish-list than anything produced by the Founding Fathers.

Much of the discussion in English has concentrated on the first part of the constitution, which deals with institutional arrangements. This is hardly surprising, as the implications of more powerful and centralized European institutions are far-reaching. If Giscard has his way, for example, there will be a European foreign minister who will represent the EU as a whole on certain issues. This includes speaking for Europe at the U.N. Security Council, replacing the spokesmen of individual nations. It is likely that the first holder of the office will be the German Green party's foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, who has already pronounced that "to change one iota of the Convention would be a catastrophe." This would, of course, be dreadful news for the United States, as it would lose the independent voices of Britain, Spain, and other America-friendly EU members in meetings of the Security Council.

The institutional arrangements are only part of the constitution. Two other aspects deserve close consideration as well. First is the "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union," which pretends to be the EU Bill of Rights. As we all know, the American Bill of Rights is couched mostly in negative terms, forbidding government from certain action. The European charter, however, is couched in positive terms, bestowing rights upon citizens by the grace of its actions.

And what an interesting collection of rights they are. Human dignity is the very first right enumerated, so signaling that the charter feels it should legislate for common decency. The second article outlaws the death penalty. In the third article on the integrity of the person there is a prohibition on "making the human body and its parts as such a source of financial gain" (no payments for blood donation, then). Although odd, these provisions are probably within the generally accepted idea of what "human rights" entail. In Article 14, however, we see that social policy, too, is an area of human rights, as the charter guarantees the "right to education and to have access to vocational and continuing training . . . [including] the possibility to receive free compulsory education." Employers must therefore allow their employees to undertake vocational training, and homeschooling is in serious trouble. European teachers' unions will be happy.

It goes on. Discrimination based on birth is prohibited, which puts those countries with monarchies in an interesting position. Equality between men and women is ensured in employment, work, and pay specifically, except that "the principle of equality shall not prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures providing for specific advantages in favour of the under-represented sex." Children "may express their views freely" — so much for the days of silence in movie theaters!

Then comes the "solidarity" title, which grants labor unions an entrenched constitutional position, giving workers the right to collective bargaining and to take strike action. The welfare state is also entrenched, with welfare benefits guaranteed, including "social and housing assistance so as to ensure a decent existence for all those who lack sufficient resources." The charter thereby reverses many of the union and welfare reforms introduced into Britain by Margaret Thatcher — reforms that have been instrumental in lifting that country back into the ranks of strong economies — and forbids Germany and other nations from embracing them at a time when they desperately need to do so. To his credit, Tony Blair has said he will oppose this part of the constitution.

The charter moves on to guaranteeing "a high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment." It then turns to justice, where it guarantees fair trials, the presumption of innocence, proportional penalties, and protection from double jeopardy, but says nothing about self-incrimination or trial by jury.

Yet the charter contains a get-out clause. Any of these rights may be limited in the interest of meeting "objectives of general interest recognized by the Union." A raison d'etat is thereby enshrined in the constitution. Presumably this is how the European Union will reconcile its actions against "xenophobia" with the general principle of freedom of expression.

This is only the tip of the iceberg, however. The next and largest part of the constitution actually lays down ground rules for the policies that the Union shall follow in areas where it has "shared competence" with member governments. These areas include transport, energy, social policy, the environment, consumer protection, criminal justice and policing, and "economic, social and territorial cohesion." As British convention member David Heathcote-Amory pointed out, "'Shared' is defined to mean that, when the EU decides to legislate in these areas, member states are forbidden to."

So, European political choices are laid down in constitutional form. As an example, Article III-124 on environmental policy states that it "shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay." Greenpeace could not have asked for more, really. It is perfectly possible to envisage a situation where a member government trying to pull out of its Kyoto agreements, having realized how damaging they are for its economy, is taken to court for unconstitutional action.

The EU constitution is in many ways the complete opposite of the U.S. Constitution. It protects institutions' powers and enumerates rights. It limits its member states' freedoms while accruing powers based on one political worldview to the center. It is not something that Jefferson or, for that matter, Madison would regard as a just settlement. The draft reflects not so much the will of the people as the will of pressure groups — labor unions, NGOs, and other single interest groups — all collected together in one vast, 224-page manifesto. In selling out to these lobbies, Giscard has shown himself to be not Europe's Madison, but its Benedict Arnold.

— Iain Murray is a senior fellow in the International Policy Group at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
 

[Admin]

From: thejuliechris Sent: 6/10/2005 8:05 PM

I know that I am new to the forum, however I feel that the discussion on term limits needs to be further explored. Although removing term limits and working towards yearly re-evalutions of elected officials is needed, something else must be done about the current nature of elections. Although I believe in hands off government as much as anyone, what rules of engagement could we devise to make it a competition of results rather than a moochers bazzar?

Julie

[Gned_the_Gnome]

This seems similar to the project I started at http://america.freecountries.org and http://america.freecountries.org/call-for-delegates.html - maybe it would make sense to work together on these?
Also I remembered an idea I had (although Jefferson had something similar in mind) - why just term limits for the officeholders? How about a 10 year term limit for the whole Federal gov't!? The states ought to declare it in violation of its charter and null and void and take proposals for a new Federal gov't (or better yet, various free market agencies to provide the various services needed, and allow competition, i.e. no monopolies) with the service contracts running a max. of 10 years and NOT renewable and the workers could not renew their jobs in a future one either. As one was about to expire, they could start setting up the next one, with different people in it. And every year, a separate agency would audit them, and if there's a shortfall or deficit, maybe the people running it should pay the difference out of their own pocket?
 

[DennisLeeWilson]

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/article/what-our-constitution-permits

What Our Constitution Permits
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
By Walter E. Williams

Here's the House of Representatives’ new rule: "A bill or joint resolution may not be introduced unless the sponsor has submitted for printing in the Congressional Record a statement citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution."

Unless a congressional bill or resolution meets this requirement, it cannot be introduced.

If the House of Representatives had the courage to follow through on this rule, their ability to spend and confer legislative favors would be virtually eliminated. Also, if the rule were to be applied to existing law, they'd wind up repealing at least two-thirds to three-quarters of congressional spending.

You might think, for example, that there's constitutional authority for Congress to spend for highway construction and bridges.

President James Madison on March 3, 1817 vetoed a public works bill saying: "Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled 'An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,' and which sets apart and pledges funds 'for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,' I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States and to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated."

Madison, who is sometimes referred to as the father of our Constitution, added to his veto statement, "The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers."

Here's my question to any member of the House who might vote for funds for "constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses": Was Madison just plain constitutionally ignorant or has the Constitution been amended to permit such spending?

What about handouts to poor people, businesses, senior citizens and foreigners? Madison said, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

In 1854, President Franklin Piece vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. (To approve the measure) would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

President Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill for charity relief, saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."

Again, my question to House members who'd vote for handouts is: Were these leaders just plain constitutionally ignorant or mean-spirited, or has our Constitution been amended to authorize charity?

Suppose a congressman attempts to comply with the new rule by asserting that his measure is authorized by the Constitution's general welfare clause. Here's what Thomas Jefferson said: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Madison added, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

John Adams warned, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." I am all too afraid that's where our nation stands today and the blame lies with the American people.
[*I* think the blame lies with people thinking that the Constitution had any chance at all of limiting government. As Kenneth Royce (aka Boston T Party) demonstrates in his book "Hologram of Liberty", Alexander Hamilton never intended that the Constitution would limit government, and it hasn't....dlw]