No, I have an ability to READ the Consitution unfettered by 200 years of jurisprudence and several years of law professors telling me its clear language means something other than what it says.

Neato. The next step is to try actually using that ability. You are the one, not me, who is trying to give a common English phrase (“for the general welfare”) a meaning its words will not bear (“only if some other part of the Constitution says they get to do it already”).

But if you really think most nonlawyers agree with you, by all means, go ask 100 random non-lawyers how many of them think the PETS Act violates any part of the Constitution. Damned near none, I suspect, though not necessarily for the right reason. The average nonlawyer doesn’t think in terms of enumerated powers. The average lawyer does, but also knows that the tax and spend power is one of those enumerated powers. The only group likely to agree with you is a small number of self-styled “constitutionalists” who have little or no formal knowledge of the Constitution, but have convinced themselves they know all there is to know. Oh yeah, that makes other people arrogant, not them. Right.

I point you at the recent Kelo decision as an example of “only a lawyer”.

I’m no fan of the Kelo decision. That decision is indeed the type “only a lawyer could love,” but for reasons having nothing to do with the topic of this discussion. In fact, the worst thing about the Kelo decision is that it does to the takings clause what you all are trying to do to the tax and spend clause: find a clearly-worded constitutional provision you disagree with, then rationalize that it doesn’t really mean what it clearly says.

I assure you that *I* made no “frivolous legal argument” to support what I said – indeed, I made no LEGAL argument at all!

Sure you did. If you had merely argued that the tax and spend clause gives Congress more power than Congress ought to have, I wouldn’t have argued the point; in fact, I would have agreed with it. Where your argument stopped being a reasonable opinion and started being a frivolous quasi-legal argument is when you claimed, citing no evidence whatsoever, that a common-sense reading of the phrase “for the general welfare” violates the intent of the framers. It certainly doesn’t violate Hamilton’s intent. Madison’s, maybe, but he drafted the damned thing, so if it’s applied too broadly for his own tastes he has no one but himself to blame.

It is a moral and ethical argument, which quite clearly (to the rest of humanity) is much, much superior to law.

Oh please. There are practical, historical and geopolitical arguments to be made for and against a federalist system vs. a strong central government, but morality is not among them. It’s not as though the Eleventh Commandment read “Thou shalt not allow thy federal government to usurp the roles of the states.”

Your arrogance is indeed impressive.

“Only because “anyone but a lawyer” is more likely than the average lawyer to have a naively idealistic conception of what the Framers’ actual intentions were.”

No, I have an ability to READ the Consitution unfettered by 200 years of jurisprudence and several years of law professors telling me its clear language means something other than what it says.

The arrogance people despise (yes DESPISE) in lawyers is not their knowledge of legal minutia – indeed, that is why we are often forced to hire you. It is the constant background and underlying contempt that you hold for us, the unwashed masses. Why, we apparently can’t even READ.

The Consitution is a VERY easily read document, even giving it 200+ years to age. There are a few finer points where disagreement on intent is likely and reasonable, but this is not one of them. I point you at the recent Kelo decision as an example of “only a lawyer”.

I assure you that *I* made no “frivolous legal argument” to support what I said – indeed, I made no LEGAL argument at all! It is a moral and ethical argument, which quite clearly (to the rest of humanity) is much, much superior to law. Indeed, this country came about through such – by BREAKING the unjust laws that bound it (or such was the argument of the men who founded this country).

I am quite sure you can easily and thoroughly defeat me in any court in the land. Your skills in the court room or with the leegal document are not being challenged in the slightest (at least, not by me). That is entirely and completely beside the point.

THAT is what “only a lawyer” means.

What’s that famous quote? I want to say it was Mark Twain, but that might not be right (I’m not anywhere I can look this stuff up, so I’m shooting from the hip – my apologies, but I’m fairly certain that you’ll recognize it, even if I butcher it):

“Some ideas are so stupid, only an academic could believe them.”

It’s the same thing. It’s like the classic argument between doctors and chiropractors – each sees problems with such tunnel vision that they cannot acknowledge that the other might be right on any particular point.

And that is your problem, as well – tunnel vision. Sure, the case law is “settled”, and the precedents support you. But they are all quite clarly wrong to anyone who bothers to read and understand the document they are supposedly based on.

“As an aside, it’s worth noting that Eastman’s argument, if accepted, is an argument against any form of federal disaster relief.” Quite right. But as you’ve painfully pointed out, that train (and so many, many others) left the station long ago, leaving a huge mess for those of us around today.

Now, you’ve wandered even further out into left field by claiming that this particular federal expenditure (or, more precisely, one particular condition that must be met to receive it) is magically “not linked to the tax and spend power.” How on earth does that work? Do you think taxes and expenditures you like are linked to the tax and spend power, but taxes and expenditures you don’t like are not? If not, kindly explain how this particular federal expenditure is distinguishable from the rest.

Your bloviations have indeed shown us that lawyers do receive an education that most of us don’t have (or want); the primary lesson that you’ve learned is that the letter, not the spirit, of the law is what counts, and as long as you’re quickwitted and well spoken enough to convince someone else to see your side of the argument, the law means, quite literally, nothing.

Perhaps you see that as a good thing. Most of us have the sense to see it as shameful.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/26.html#2

As you can see, it split Hamilton and Madison. Chances it’ll be resolved today are slim.

Your frivolous argument didn’t disappoint, although in your case the problem had more to do with reasoning skills, or lack thereof, than with the usual problem of getting the substantive law wrong. You started by getting the law right, quoting Helvering v. Davis, and then proceeded to argue as if it said exactly the opposite. On what planet does “it is well settled that Congress may spend public funds, or withhold public funds as an inducement toward certain behavior” translate into “it is well settled that Congress may not spend or withhold public funds as an inducement toward behavior that some guy named Jake (who hasn’t been born yet but we’re pretty sure he will be, a couple centuries from now) thinks is silly?”

The “general welfare” language in US Const. Art. I, sec. 8, relates to the legislative spending power. It is well settled that Congress may spend public funds, or withhold public funds as an inducement toward certain behavior. See, e.g. Helvering v. Davis (1937).

The “general welfare” language in Art. I, sec. 8 does not authorize Congress to require or forbid any sort of conduct it chooses in terms not linked to the spending power. The silly proposed legislation under debate, decreeing that steps be taken to care for pets in the event of natural disasters, finds no constitutional support in the “general welfare” language of Art. I, sec. 8.