Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[Spare_change]

I am continually amused by the twisted and perverted logic liberals use to try to prop up a dying and failed political methodology.

Again SC, no matter how accurate it may be, ad hominem is not allowed on this thread. So you cannot assume whatever kind of logic liberals use. You can only comment on what liberals do or point out how the logic they actually post or say or write is wrong if you believe it to be wrong.

Again, Foxy --- that is NOT an ad hominem attack. It is a commentary in response to the original question, as well as commentary on the previous posts. Your restriction is unrealistic. You give them the rhetorical advantage.

 

[candycorn]

I am continually amused by the twisted and perverted logic liberals use to try to prop up a dying and failed political methodology.

This liberal "dying and failed political methodology" has been going for about 2 and quarter centuries now and shows no signs of failing as yet.

Perhaps you are thinking of something different.

You misspoke - for about 2 and a quarter centuries, we have suffered from those who have consistently failed. Liberalism doesn't work - no matter how many times we try it.

Yet somehow we managed to build the greatest civilization the planet has ever seen....it is strange what you call suffering.

But Okay here is a test of the two ideologies...we had tornadoes in North Texas/Oklahoma yesterday and the day before. It's a pretty safe bet that there will be a disaster declared and FEMA will be activated

Are you ready to tell them to fend for themselves or would you rather send in FEMA; a government organization the founders never envisioned to help people get back on their feet? In short, a liberal ideal.

Tell us how you'd handle it and why?

Your question is a trap .... there is no correct answer.

Sure there is; there is an answer that is cold, cruel, and heartless and there is an answer that is compassionate, American, and smart because today's giver of aid is likely to be tomorrow's receiver.

You won't answer because the dead philosophy of conservatives is by it's very nature one of cruelty.

 

[candycorn]

I am continually amused by the twisted and perverted logic liberals use to try to prop up a dying and failed political methodology.

Again SC, no matter how accurate it may be, ad hominem is not allowed on this thread. So you cannot assume whatever kind of logic liberals use. You can only comment on what liberals do or point out how the logic they actually post or say or write is wrong if you believe it to be wrong.

Again, Foxy --- that is NOT an ad hominem attack. It is a commentary in response to the original question, as well as commentary on the previous posts. Your restriction is unrealistic. You give them the rhetorical advantage.

No. Common sense delivers the advantages to liberalism.

Again, if we didn't have FEMA, we'd have to invent it. If we didn't have NASA, we'd have to invent it. If the Clean Water Act, the 40 hour work week, the FMLA, FDIC, Social Security Administration were not here, we'd do well to invent them.

There are zero conservatives who anyone has heard of who wish to do-away with these programs that were all liberal inventions.

Therefore the embracement of liberalism by conservatives is proof positive that if there is a dying, defunct, misguided, antiquated, and obsolete ideology, it is that of the conserveatives.

You'll note that the OP will not give any objective data to support the central question...there is a reason for that; there are none.

 

[oldernwiser]

IMO, one of the differences between modern liberalism and modern conservatism is that modern conservatism allows differences of opinion and looks to achieve compromise while modern liberalism more often requires uniform thought and opinion, and those who don't agree with the liberals are declared evil or bad or unacceptable.

For example, conservatives don't care whether one person wants guns in the home and another does not. They just want the central government to not interfere with those choices.

Conservatives don't care whether liberals believe the public schools are just fine, They just want the right to ensure their own kids get the best education possible and don't want to be forced to keep throwing more and more money at a system that never seems to get better.

Conservatives don't care if liberals want cradle to grave security from government. They just want choice, options, and liberty to look after their own healthcare, to educate their children as they think best, and freedom to pursue happiness and prosperity as they choose.

The fact is that what liberalism has embraced and pushed for a half century now has not delivered as advertised. It has created an 18 trillion dollar debt, and for every success story that can be pointed to, there are at least two or more unintended negative consequences. The more liberalism tries to produce a better society, the worse things seem to get.

This is what more people are beginning to see and understand and reject. It is not that conservatism is any more well intended or righteous or noble. But conservatism produces better results. And people prefer better results to worse ones. So looking at the trends in the U.K. and here in America, I think Goldberg is probably right..

I'm sorry Foxfyre. If we're going to debate here, at least be honest and factual with what you bring up.

modern conservatism allows differences of opinion

Conservatives don't care whether liberals believe the public schools are just fine

Conservatives don't care if liberals want cradle to grave security from government.

Yep, lot's of compromise there.

Here's what I reject as a liberal (and I'm only doing this because you're telling us what you think as a conservative): I reject the conservative notions about what liberals think and want. I reject the comment that "what liberalism has embraced and pushed for a half century now has not delivered as advertised" when just as many things that were embraced by conservatives have also not delivered as advertised.

I'm kind of curious as to which UK trends shows that conservative values have had such positive results that they should also be adopted here.

 

[oldernwiser]

I am continually amused by the twisted and perverted logic liberals use to try to prop up a dying and failed political methodology.

This liberal "dying and failed political methodology" has been going for about 2 and quarter centuries now and shows no signs of failing as yet.

Perhaps you are thinking of something different.

You misspoke - for about 2 and a quarter centuries, we have suffered from those who have consistently failed. Liberalism doesn't work - no matter how many times we try it.

Yet somehow we managed to build the greatest civilization the planet has ever seen....it is strange what you call suffering.

But Okay here is a test of the two ideologies...we had tornadoes in North Texas/Oklahoma yesterday and the day before. It's a pretty safe bet that there will be a disaster declared and FEMA will be activated

Are you ready to tell them to fend for themselves or would you rather send in FEMA; a government organization the founders never envisioned to help people get back on their feet? In short, a liberal ideal.

Tell us how you'd handle it and why?

Your question is a trap .... there is no correct answer.

Actually, in light of the subject matter it's not a trap, it's very pertinent. Smaller government = less services. Less services = less preparedness. There is no provision in the Constitution for an agency which responds to natural disasters (apparently, the framers felt that if a tree fell on your house, you'd naturally take care of that on your own). But it's also clear they had never seen a tornado which could erase whole towns before. FEMA is one of those targeted departments which conservatives have said needs to be downgraded. And so this makes a valid point.

There is no answer under conservative small government is best value set. Here's where cognitive dissonance sets in, because if conservatism can't answer that simple scenario it also can't adequately answer a whole host of others. Therefore, conservatives NEED liberals as liberals NEED conservatives. It can never be one or the other.

 

[oldernwiser]

I am continually amused by the twisted and perverted logic liberals use to try to prop up a dying and failed political methodology.

Again SC, no matter how accurate it may be, ad hominem is not allowed on this thread. So you cannot assume whatever kind of logic liberals use. You can only comment on what liberals do or point out how the logic they actually post or say or write is wrong if you believe it to be wrong.

Again, Foxy --- that is NOT an ad hominem attack. It is a commentary in response to the original question, as well as commentary on the previous posts. Your restriction is unrealistic. You give them the rhetorical advantage.

I don't think liberals actually need a rhetorical advantage. Facts have always sufficed in the past.

 

[Foxfyre]

IMO, one of the differences between modern liberalism and modern conservatism is that modern conservatism allows differences of opinion and looks to achieve compromise while modern liberalism more often requires uniform thought and opinion, and those who don't agree with the liberals are declared evil or bad or unacceptable.

For example, conservatives don't care whether one person wants guns in the home and another does not. They just want the central government to not interfere with those choices.

Conservatives don't care whether liberals believe the public schools are just fine, They just want the right to ensure their own kids get the best education possible and don't want to be forced to keep throwing more and more money at a system that never seems to get better.

Conservatives don't care if liberals want cradle to grave security from government. They just want choice, options, and liberty to look after their own healthcare, to educate their children as they think best, and freedom to pursue happiness and prosperity as they choose.

The fact is that what liberalism has embraced and pushed for a half century now has not delivered as advertised. It has created an 18 trillion dollar debt, and for every success story that can be pointed to, there are at least two or more unintended negative consequences. The more liberalism tries to produce a better society, the worse things seem to get.

This is what more people are beginning to see and understand and reject. It is not that conservatism is any more well intended or righteous or noble. But conservatism produces better results. And people prefer better results to worse ones. So looking at the trends in the U.K. and here in America, I think Goldberg is probably right..

I'm sorry Foxfyre. If we're going to debate here, at least be honest and factual with what you bring up.

modern conservatism allows differences of opinion

Conservatives don't care whether liberals believe the public schools are just fine

Conservatives don't care if liberals want cradle to grave security from government.

Yep, lot's of compromise there.

Here's what I reject as a liberal (and I'm only doing this because you're telling us what you think as a conservative): I reject the conservative notions about what liberals think and want. I reject the comment that "what liberalism has embraced and pushed for a half century now has not delivered as advertised" when just as many things that were embraced by conservatives have also not delivered as advertised.

I'm kind of curious as to which UK trends shows that conservative values have had such positive results that they should also be adopted here.

Whether I am or am not honest is not the topic of this thread, and rule one for this thread puts such ad hominem comments off limits. And I did not say what liberals think or want. I expressed what I think conservatives do not think and what I think they want.

From what I have read, the UK has had a far less deep and a much shorter recessionary period because of the conservative economic policies of the more conservative government. And the conservatives were rewarded for that in the recent election.

And whether or not you agree with my opinion re liberalism and conservatism, the thread topic is whether Goldberg is right that there is a trend to reject liberalism and embrace conservatism. Based on that recent UK election and recent U.S. elections and other arguments over the course of this thread, I think he is probably right, though maybe not to the degree he seems to argue in his essay.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am continually amused by the twisted and perverted logic liberals use to try to prop up a dying and failed political methodology.

This liberal "dying and failed political methodology" has been going for about 2 and quarter centuries now and shows no signs of failing as yet.

Perhaps you are thinking of something different.

You misspoke - for about 2 and a quarter centuries, we have suffered from those who have consistently failed. Liberalism doesn't work - no matter how many times we try it.

Yet somehow we managed to build the greatest civilization the planet has ever seen....it is strange what you call suffering.

But Okay here is a test of the two ideologies...we had tornadoes in North Texas/Oklahoma yesterday and the day before. It's a pretty safe bet that there will be a disaster declared and FEMA will be activated

Are you ready to tell them to fend for themselves or would you rather send in FEMA; a government organization the founders never envisioned to help people get back on their feet? In short, a liberal ideal.

Tell us how you'd handle it and why?

Your question is a trap .... there is no correct answer.

Actually, in light of the subject matter it's not a trap, it's very pertinent. Smaller government = less services. Less services = less preparedness. There is no provision in the Constitution for an agency which responds to natural disasters (apparently, the framers felt that if a tree fell on your house, you'd naturally take care of that on your own). But it's also clear they had never seen a tornado which could erase whole towns before. FEMA is one of those targeted departments which conservatives have said needs to be downgraded. And so this makes a valid point.

There is no answer under conservative small government is best value set. Here's where cognitive dissonance sets in, because if conservatism can't answer that simple scenario it also can't adequately answer a whole host of others. Therefore, conservatives NEED liberals as liberals NEED conservatives. It can never be one or the other.

What conservatives have wanted to do away with FEMA? I certainly have not. I don't recall a single other conservative saying that. Do we want FEMA to be the rapid response team for major large scale crisis that the average state would not likely have resources to be prepared for? Yes.

Do we want FEMA to then just become another welfare program? No.

Do we want certain shared government services? Yes. Do we want ever more federal one-size-fits-all programs? Except for those mandated by the Constitution such as national defense and the postal service and a few other things that the states cannot realistically do for themselves, for the most part no.

That becomes a huge dishonesty in the debate. It is quite honest to say that a program like Obamacare force the federal government program onto everybody whether they want it or not.

But it does not logically follow that the conservative demand for small, efficient, effective, affordable, and liberty allowing federal government is not the same thing as wanting no government or no government services.

Conservatism sees the federal government meddling and mandating and intruding in areas in which it was never intended to have authority. And the results of that have produced more negative consequences than positive ones.

Conservatives hold on to the idea that individual liberty trumps government's legitimate authority to tell us how we must order our societies, lives our lives, raise our children, etc. We have this weird idea that we are likely to know what is in our best interest better than any government official or bureaucrat will know that.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am continually amused by the twisted and perverted logic liberals use to try to prop up a dying and failed political methodology.

Again SC, no matter how accurate it may be, ad hominem is not allowed on this thread. So you cannot assume whatever kind of logic liberals use. You can only comment on what liberals do or point out how the logic they actually post or say or write is wrong if you believe it to be wrong.

Again, Foxy --- that is NOT an ad hominem attack. It is a commentary in response to the original question, as well as commentary on the previous posts. Your restriction is unrealistic. You give them the rhetorical advantage.

It is extremely borderline I'll concede. But ad hominem nevertheless just as somebody saying Spare_change logic is 'twisted and perverted' would be ad hominem. What would take it all the way out of the ad hominem category would be to say that most liberals argue whatever and that argument is twisted and perverted because. . . .

In other words you wouldn't be assigning a characteristic to liberals but would be focused on the argument made. A subtle difference, yes, but it keeps the argument from dissolving into a liberals bad or liberals good or conservatives bad or conservatives good argument rather than focusing on whether liberalism is losing favor.

It is my opinion that arguments put forth by liberals are going to be ad hominem most of the time. I think liberalism has a really tough time defending itself or articulating an argument for or against a particular concept without criticizing, accusing, blaming, or demonizing a person or group. And every time I get into one of these philosophical discussions, almost all keep reinforcing my opinion about that.

For sure not all conservatives do, but I believe most conservatives can make an argument without ad hominem, because conservatism is based on objective criteria and not on poorly defined and even more difficult to defend notions of what a righteous society is.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I am continually amused by the twisted and perverted logic liberals use to try to prop up a dying and failed political methodology.

This liberal "dying and failed political methodology" has been going for about 2 and quarter centuries now and shows no signs of failing as yet.

Perhaps you are thinking of something different.

You misspoke - for about 2 and a quarter centuries, we have suffered from those who have consistently failed. Liberalism doesn't work - no matter how many times we try it.

This nation is based upon the liberal concept that We the People are all equal and are capable of governing ourselves.

If you don't like how We the People run our country there is nothing stopping you from finding somewhere else.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I am continually amused by the twisted and perverted logic liberals use to try to prop up a dying and failed political methodology.

This liberal "dying and failed political methodology" has been going for about 2 and quarter centuries now and shows no signs of failing as yet.

Perhaps you are thinking of something different.

You misspoke - for about 2 and a quarter centuries, we have suffered from those who have consistently failed. Liberalism doesn't work - no matter how many times we try it.

Yet somehow we managed to build the greatest civilization the planet has ever seen....it is strange what you call suffering.

But Okay here is a test of the two ideologies...we had tornadoes in North Texas/Oklahoma yesterday and the day before. It's a pretty safe bet that there will be a disaster declared and FEMA will be activated

Are you ready to tell them to fend for themselves or would you rather send in FEMA; a government organization the founders never envisioned to help people get back on their feet? In short, a liberal ideal.

Tell us how you'd handle it and why?

Your question is a trap .... there is no correct answer.

That was a legitimate question.

Either We the People are directed by the Constitution to form a more perfect union by ensuring the general welfare of the people or we aren't.

Which is it?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I am continually amused by the twisted and perverted logic liberals use to try to prop up a dying and failed political methodology.

Again SC, no matter how accurate it may be, ad hominem is not allowed on this thread. So you cannot assume whatever kind of logic liberals use. You can only comment on what liberals do or point out how the logic they actually post or say or write is wrong if you believe it to be wrong.

Again, Foxy --- that is NOT an ad hominem attack. It is a commentary in response to the original question, as well as commentary on the previous posts. Your restriction is unrealistic. You give them the rhetorical advantage.

Spare_change is entirely correct that his post wasn't an ad hom, Foxfyre, just as mine wasn't either.

The definition of an ad hom is an attack on an opponent's character.

A general observation, no matter how fallacious it may be in that instance, was not a personal attack on the character of any individual.

SC is entitled to his misinformed opinion of liberals mythical "dying and failed political methodology" and I will uphold his right to post it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It is my opinion that arguments put forth by liberals are going to be ad hominem most of the time. I think liberalism has a really tough time defending itself or articulating an argument for or against a particular concept without criticizing, accusing, blaming, or demonizing a person or group. And every time I get into one of these philosophical discussions, almost all keep reinforcing my opinion about that.

Ironic!

 

[Foxfyre]

There is absolutely zero, zip, nada, nothing whatsoever in the Constitution that gives the federal government authority to 'ensure the general welfare.'

Both Hamilton and Madison, federalist and anti-federalist were completely in agreement that the Constitution does not allow for unlimited authority but severely restricts the authority the federal government has.

The 'general welfare' clause in the Constitution reads:

Article I, Sec.8, clause 1, U.S. Constitution, says:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

That is immediately followed by 15 specific powers delegated to Congress to implement that clause. Depending on how we count them, I think there are only 21 specific powers given the federal government to impose on people in the entire Constitution.

Conservatives believe the Constitution was intended to limit central government authority and prevent it from imposing whatever laws and rules and regulations and mandates on the people that some politician or bureaucrat wanted to impose. Most conservatives would leave it up to the people to determine what laws and rules and regulations should be in the society they want as that is what liberty looks like to a conservative.

IMO, liberals seem to take the opposite point of view and look to politicians and bureaucrats as a better judge of how society should be ordered and regulated and do not trust the people, left to their own desires, to get that right or use their own resources in their own best interest.

If liberalism is falling out of favor with the American people, it is because they are becoming more aware that those politicians and bureaucrats are not any smarter or wiser than the people are and liberty starts looking a lot more attractive.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There is absolutely zero, zip, nada, nothing whatsoever in the Constitution that gives the federal government authority to 'ensure the general welfare.'

Actually it is explicitly stated in Article 1 Section 8.

The Congress shall have 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. – Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8​

No federal court has ever struck down any law passed by Congress that spends money on General Welfare regardless as to whether it is for roads, prisons, foodstamps, schools, social security, national parks, etc, etc.

So yes, there is Article 1 Section 8 that gives the federal government the authority to ensure the General Welfare.

Once again the facts are indisputable.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is absolutely zero, zip, nada, nothing whatsoever in the Constitution that gives the federal government authority to 'ensure the general welfare.'

Actually it is explicitly stated in Article 1 Section 8.

The Congress shall have 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. – Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8​

No federal court has ever struck down any law passed by Congress that spends money on General Welfare regardless as to whether it is for roads, prisons, foodstamps, schools, social security, national parks, etc, etc.

So yes, there is Article 1 Section 8 that gives the federal government the authority to ensure the General Welfare.

Once again the facts are indisputable.

I'm pretty sure every court prior to the Teddy Roosevelt administration would have struck down federal welfare laws as well as all the other federal overreach had it been challenged, but no federal government prior to Roosevelt presumed to engage in such government overreach or in the very rare incident in which it happened, it was not considered serious enough to challenge in the courts. And it didn't become policy.

The courts are not the arbiter of what is and is not conservative thought or values. And a liberal court is just as much in error as a liberal President or Congress when it interprets the Constitution to mean what it wants it to mean, meaning the liberal point of view.

The conservative most often interprets the Constitution as the Founders intended it to be interpreted. And I think maybe more people are becoming aware of that and are beginning to see the wisdom of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

To further elaborate, Brian Phillips explained it eloquently here:

. . .The Founders, particularly Madison, understood that the general welfare clause could be abused. In Federalist Paper 83, Madison wrote:

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion in to their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county, and parish and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."

Thomas Jefferson called the phrase “a mere ‘grammatical quibble’ that has countenanced the general government in a claim of universal power”. He mistakenly believed that the Founder’s had clarified their intentions and meaning, and debate over the meaning of the phrase would cease.

The Founders clearly understood the “general welfare” to mean the good of all citizens, not an open-ended mandate for Congress. The only good that applies to all citizens is freedom, and government’s proper role is the protection of that freedom. That was the meaning intended by the Founders.

Those who sought to expand government’s powers chose to ignore the explanations offered by the Founders. Corrupted by bad philosophy, they rejected the principles of the Founders and of the Constitution.
The Founders and the General Welfare - Capitalism Magazine​

If conservatives would just keep patiently teaching that concept every chance they get, the truth of it will have a chance to break through the socialist fog that has enveloped this country, and we might start throwing off the shackles of liberalism. And maybe liberalism could be pushed back to the place where it can't hurt us so much instead of just sleeping as Goldberg suggests.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'm pretty sure every court prior to the Teddy Roosevelt administration would have struck down federal welfare laws as well as all the other federal overreach had it been challenged, but no federal government prior to Roosevelt presumed to engage in such government overreach or in the very rare incident in which it happened, it was not considered serious enough to challenge in the courts. And it didn't become policy.

Congress introduced social policies like laws requiring public education right from the VERY outset.

Historical Timeline of Public Education in the US Race Forward

1785The Continental Congress (before the U.S. Constitution was ratified) passes a law calling for a survey of the "Northwest Territory" which included what was to become the state of Ohio. The law created "townships," reserving a portion of each township for a local school. From these "land grants" eventually came the U.S. system of "land grant universities," the state public universities that exist today. Of course in order to create these townships, the Continental Congress assumes it has the right to give away or sell land that is already occupied by Native people.

1790
Pennsylvania state constitution calls for free public education but only for poor children. It is expected that rich people will pay for their children's schooling.

1817
A petition presented in the Boston Town Meeting calls for establishing of a system of free public primary schools. Main support comes from local merchants, businessmen and wealthier artisans. Many wage earners oppose it, because they don't want to pay the taxes.

1820
First public high school in the U.S., Boston English, opens.

1827
Massachusetts passes a law making all grades of public school open to all pupils free of charge.

1830s
By this time, most southern states have laws forbidding teaching people in slavery to read. Even so, around 5 percent become literate at great personal risk.

1865-1877
African Americans mobilize to bring public education to the South for the first time. After the Civil War, and with the legal end of slavery, African Americans in the South make alliances with white Republicans to push for many political changes, including for the first time rewriting state constitutions to guarantee free public education. In practice, white children benefit more than Black children.​

Looks like "government overreach" on general welfare has been around even before Teddy Rooseveldt came along!

 

[Derideo_Te]

To further elaborate, Brian Phillips explained it eloquently here:

. . .The Founders, particularly Madison, understood that the general welfare clause could be abused. In Federalist Paper 83, Madison wrote:

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion in to their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county, and parish and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."

Thomas Jefferson called the phrase “a mere ‘grammatical quibble’ that has countenanced the general government in a claim of universal power”. He mistakenly believed that the Founder’s had clarified their intentions and meaning, and debate over the meaning of the phrase would cease.

The Founders clearly understood the “general welfare” to mean the good of all citizens, not an open-ended mandate for Congress. The only good that applies to all citizens is freedom, and government’s proper role is the protection of that freedom. That was the meaning intended by the Founders.

Those who sought to expand government’s powers chose to ignore the explanations offered by the Founders. Corrupted by bad philosophy, they rejected the principles of the Founders and of the Constitution.
The Founders and the General Welfare - Capitalism Magazine​

If conservatives would just keep patiently teaching that concept every chance they get, the truth of it will have a chance to break through the socialist fog that has enveloped this country, and we might start throwing off the shackles of liberalism. And maybe liberalism could be pushed back to the place where it can't hurt us so much instead of just sleeping as Goldberg suggests.

The Federalist Papers are not the Law of the Land. What has prevailed are the laws that promoted the general welfare be they schools, libraries, roads, social security, medicare, etc, etc. No federal court has ever overturned any Congressional spending bill for these general welfare purposes.

 

[Foxfyre]

The continental congress isn't the law of the land either. And intellectual honesty requires a distinction between central government authority and the intended authority of the people of the states and local communities to determine what local government they wished to have and what education was appropriate for their children. The central government was intended to have no authority over that. .

President Jefferson himself did once petition Congress to help establish the University of Virginia, intended to be the first secular American university, but Congress wisely shot that down as that was not a function given to the central government to do. He was instrumental in the founding of that institution, but did so via private funds, not taxpayer funds.