Are national parks constitutional?
opebo:
Quote from: PropertyRights™ on October 02, 2005, 12:25:14 PM
Uh, no, clearly they are not. You don't understand how the word 'general' was used at the time the Constitution was written, and should really quit pretending otherwise.
I know exactly what they meant. As I said, the particular physical location of a thing - government office, etc. - has no bearing on its generality. Even ephemeral things like principles require a legal system with physical machinery located in specific places to put it into operation.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
You think we all understand one another clearly? I'd say that 'making things up' is a significant part of any interpretation.
A18:
"General" means more than being open to the nation, as Emsworth and I have explained several times. It means national, as distinguished from local: those national things outside the sphere of the states.
We understand each other very clearly.
Emsworth:
Quote from: opebo on October 02, 2005, 12:38:03 PM
I know exactly what they meant. As I said, the particular physical location of a thing - government office, etc. - has no bearing on its generality.
The word "general," as used in the Constitution, has nothing to do with "generality." It was a synonym for "federal"; thus, people spoke of the "general government," where we would speak of the "federal government."
Therefore, unless the expenditure involves the general or federal welfare, extending throughout the union (to use Hamilton's words), it cannot be justified by the general welfare clause.
jimrtex:
Quote from: Emsworth on October 02, 2005, 10:58:39 AM
3. Congress may spend money to provide for the "general Welfare of the United States" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). But the welfare must be general, not local. As Alexander Hamilton expressed this limitation: "the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending ... throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot." National parks do not meet this criterion. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court correctly held in United States v. Butler, this clause does not extend to matters "within the sphere of state government." Parks are inherently local matters, firmly within the sphere of the states, not general ones subject to federal control.
Would operation and ownership of the Gettysburg National Military Park fall inside or outside of the general welfare of the United States? Were it not for the events of 1863, there might not even be a United States. Preservation of sites of special historical significance is clearly of interest and benefit to the United States, and not merely to the people in southern Pennsylvania.
Emsworth:
Quote from: jimrtex on October 03, 2005, 04:32:44 AM
Would operation and ownership of the Gettysburg National Military Park fall inside or outside of the general welfare of the United States? ... Preservation of sites of special historical significance is clearly of interest and benefit to the United States, and not merely to the people in southern Pennsylvania.
I'm afraid not. The park may have some sort of intangible national benefit, but the welfare is not general, as distinguished from local. It should be preserved by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, not the United States.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page