pudge's Journal: Graeme Frost

The reason we allow -- even encourage -- attacking the claims of political opponents from all angles is because we think this is important to democracy: get all of the information out so people can honestly evaluate it.

So when the Democrtats put up a 12-year-old boy named Graeme Frost, who supposedly needs SCHIP for his health problems, to be the poster child for the SCHIP program, giving their talking points, meeting for photo ops with their leaders, and giving the Democratic radio address, why would it possibly be off-limits to criticizing what he says, and what his financial situation is?

Doesn't the same thing that drives us to get out all of the information about everyone else who chooses to be a part of the debate, drive us to get out information about Frost? Why should he be off limits?

The Democrats and his parents chose to put him up there. They have one (or both) of two motivations in complaining about Frost being criticized: either they are against debate, or their plan all along was to put up a child just so he WOULD be criticized, just so they COULD complain about it.

The simple fact of the matter is that if it is valid to question people on the right who insert themselves into the debate -- which Democrats do all the time -- then it is valid to do so of people on the left. Age doesn't matter. Democracy is the goal here.

As to the truth of those criticisms, they were slightly off the mark. They said the kids were in private schools and the two properties the family owned were expensive; the parents counter that the properties were purchased when they were a lot less, and the kids require financial aid.

But that doesn't end the story, of course: they could sell their house, for example. That would get them a lot of money that truly poor people don't have access to. And that well-illustrates the point: we can debate the issue. Should people have to sell their homes, if they can? Why, or why not? It is dishonest and irresponsible to say "we can't talk about things like that! This is a 12-year-old kid!" If you want to thrust the kid into the debate because of his situation, then let's have an actual debate about the facts of his situation.

Attempting to debate the situation of someone who thrusts himself into the debate, where that situation is material to the debate: bad. Telling baldfaced lies about a vet of three wars: good!

Debate?

[Qzukk]

Made up inflated property value numbers when property values and sales are public record? Not checking to see how much they're actually paying for their private schooling? We're not talking about beating up some 12 year old, the Republicans dragged out their best straw men and were hitting them below the belt.

I know how you feel about the federal government picking up the tab, but I'd think you'd be above calling this junk a debate.

Start by finding out what is the actual cost of treatment for the children

Re:

[pudge]

Made up inflated property value numbers when property values and sales are public record? Not checking to see how much they're actually paying for their private schooling? We're not talking about beating up some 12 year old, the Republicans dragged out their best straw men and were hitting them below the belt.

My point has nothing to do with the specifics: according to all the Democratic leadership, it is wrong to even question or criticize this kid in any way. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Of course, the real shame is that anyone thinks it matters how much this kid's family has, because SCHIP is unconstitutional no matter what. I heard Steny Hoyer on the news tonight saying he and the Democrats were working to uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I wonder if the Democrats have told that lie so many time

Re:

[Charbox]

Who's to say what people would have done if the accusations were accurate? Since they were not, speculation is merely hypothetical; nobody can say. I think it's quite likely that if the kid's family had turned out to be rich, the Democrats would want to drop the whole thing ASAP because if they didn't the Republican's could just keep pounding away at it, saying the Dems were defending liars to get their way.

It would seem to me that the Republicans would want to address this issue by determining how and

Re:

[pudge]

Who's to say what people would have done if the accusations were accurate?

They mostly were. The criticisms were only marginally off, and were, on the whole, accurate: his family is well above the poverty line, has significant (though non-liquid) assets, and is not the kind of people that many of us think should be paid for by the government.

But that is largely irrelevant: the Democrats said it was wrong to question him at all.

And how is SCHIP unconstitutional? Is that your opinion or a court opinion?

Court opinions do not define constitutionality (as various Supreme Court justices have told us!). They only define what the government will consider to

Re:

[Charbox]

"Marginally off" is an interesting perspective on what USA Today [usatoday.com] and Time [time.com] suggest was an estimate of about twice the actual value of the family's assets.

The original Articles of Confederation, from which a great number of phrases and concepts were brought directly into the Constitution, provided that:

Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding t

Re:

[pudge]

"Marginally off" is an interesting perspective on what USA Today [usatoday.com] and Time [time.com] suggest was an estimate of about twice the actual value of the family's assets.

Shrug. Seems about right to me, considering it means they have hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets either way.

Although Madison and Hamilton poured a great deal of ink arguing about whether the General Welfare Clause applied only to the directly or tangentially enumerated powers, at the time, the Articles were the source and the only meaningful context for them and established a much broader view, independent of any other enumerated power.

By your claim here, the Tenth Amendment has no meaning whatsoever. Do you really want to make that claim? It's utter nonsense. It ignores the history of ratification, of the Constitutional convention, of the Bill of Rights, and the plain words of the Constitution itself.

The convention debates centered in large part on the issue of the federal government taking away too much power from t

Re:

[Charbox]

Well I think your question is easy. To provide for the "general" welfare is an enumerated power like the others. The ratifiers of the Tenth Amendment wished to keep the federal government out of, among other things, providing for the specific welfare of an isolated constituency without a general uplifting effect throughout the union. Buildings and real property improvements were recognized as "generally" valuable, because, for example, building a post office or a road benefits anyone anywhere who might w

Re:

[pudge]

Well I think your question is easy. To provide for the "general" welfare is an enumerated power like the others. The ratifiers of the Tenth Amendment wished to keep the federal government out of, among other things, providing for the specific welfare of an isolated constituency without a general uplifting effect throughout the union.

Nope. Wrong answer, for two reasons.

Textual: since Congress determines what the "general welfare" is, then this has no actual limiting effect. This is absolutely clear, especially when combined with the necessary-and-proper clause, even if the Court decides to take it upon themselves to define "general welfare," which they would not (and at the, the Court was seen to be far less active than it is today!). All the Congress would have to do is say that specific welfare IS FOR the general welfare, such as

Re:

[pudge]

Oh, and one more word about the Tenth Amendment: you are offering an amendment that not only contradicts Madison's expressed view when he wrote and proposed it, but the views of those whose views he was attempting to pacify. They demanded explicit limitations on the federal government to only those specific enumerated powers.

Here's what Madison actually said:

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one,

Re:

[Charbox]

Those were Madison's views before the adoption of the Constitution, but not after. Your quotations suggest that Madison would have preferred to abolish the General Welfare Clause outright. But the amendment as proposed and ratified just doesn't do anything like that. Because it can't be construed to even refer to provision for the general welfare, that power remains delegated to the U.S. government.

Apparently the Virginia ratification debates changed Madison's mind, for in 1789 he even objected to includ [uchicago.edu]

Re:

[pudge]

Those were Madison's views before the adoption of the Constitution, but not after.

False. Both were from 1792, after both the Constitution and the Tenth were ratified. One from a letter, one from a speech in Congress.

Your revisionism is disheartening. I suspect, and hope I am wrong, that you are not really examining the historical record for what they thought at the time, but only looking to support the view you prefer.

Your quotations suggest that Madison would have preferred to abolish the General Welfare Clause outright.

Absolutely false. You are question-begging, assuming that "general welfare" is an enumerated power. He explicitly disagreed with your interpretation, in Federalist 4

Re:

[Charbox]

Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the lat

Re:

[pudge]

If that were true, the common phrase "including but not limited to" would not exist.

Clearly false. You're making things up again.

Who else thought that?

You're the one claiming Madison is wrong, while it's been generally accepted for 220 years that he was the authority. You find someone who disagreed, who supported ratification.

I've challenged you several times now to come up with anyone, and you've failed. Perhaps it's time for you to give up this crazy revisionist theory?

Re:

[Charbox]

Well, since you are a Federalist, fan, here's Hamilton clarifying on the question in 1791 [uchicago.edu] as his Federalist writings never addressed the meaning of the clause directly:

The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional

Re:

[pudge]

Well, since you are a Federalist, fan, here's Hamilton clarifying on the question in 1791 [uchicago.edu] as his Federalist writings never addressed the meaning of the clause directly

So? Madison did, many times.

Message vs. Messenger

[NeMon'ess]

Debating the message is always right. Debating the messenger is not always right. Smearing the messenger to avoid debating the message is wrong.

Re:

[pudge]

Debating the message is always right. Debating the messenger is not always right. Smearing the messenger to avoid debating the message is wrong.

That's beside the point: the Democrats were attacking the Republicans for daring to even question anything about the boy's story, and the boy's story WAS THE POINT.