I'm indulging myself with this post, but if you like arguments, you might like this one.

My recent post: Ron Paul Says Founders Ignorant of Constitution caused quite a stir among the libertarian crowd. While I didn't wish to insult anyone's religion by disagreeing with a saint, some guy named Tom Woods saw it as sacrilegious. Many of the faithful commenting on my blog linked to the article about me that follows. In it, this Messiah of Mises takes five loaves and two fishes and miraculously prepares two fallacious-o-fish sandwiches.

Evidently, while I couldn't make sense of Ron Paul's hand waving and wailing, Woods reads whine language. After Paul expelled his pantload of puffoonery, Tom kindly agreed to zip up his pants. I will not apologize for my apostasy, but I will respond to this libertarian Bishop of Bombast. My words in bold type.

Some Guy: Ron Paul Doesn’t Know the Constitution

Despite his title, he no where quotes Ron Paul. I let Paul speak for himself. Instead, Woods offers his own knowledge as Paul's. Perhaps this is really about setting himself up for an appearance on Dr Phil's next codependency special.

A guy named Paul O’Rourke wrote a nasty blog post today claiming that Ron Paul doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to the Constitution. I always find it funny when conventional left-liberals like O’Rourke single out Ron Paul of all people for criticism, when (here as elsewhere) he knows more about the subject than the rest of the Republican contenders put together.  (Really, Paul, you think you’d have a useful constitutional discussion with Tim Pawlenty?)  They can’t stand an anti-establishment candidate, so they focus their anger on him.  As I never tire of saying, these people want us to shut our mouths and be content with the Biden/Romney spectrum.

Here Mr Woods launches a label referring to my "left-liberalism." Because liberalism is "left" I won't object, but even that qualification can cover a lot of philosophical ground. I'm so honored to be the object of his attention I am not bothered by the redundancy. Mr Woods then goes on to describe me in great detail, considering he doesn't know me. I am starting to feel the straw emerging from my sleeves.

Then I'm part of "these people" who want to "shut our mouths." I am honored to be an object of paranoia, which places me on the same level as Nixon, for example, or perhaps the chupacabra. I was unaware of my power to silence others, but now aware, I will begin by silencing Sean Hannity, as his voice is as close to fingernails on a chalkboard as human vocal chords can accomplish. Thanks, Mr Woods, for granting me this awesome power.

Here are the key points to bear in mind:

The merchant marine health-care thing is supposed to prove that Ron Paul’s view of the Constitution is wrong.

No, it's to assert Ron Paul must be ignorant of that fact or, if knowing, as much as saying those founders involved didn't know the limits of their own Constitution -- which is the same thing you're saying. However, his view of general welfare as Madison's version is wrong, under the constitutionally affirmed, therefore operative definition.

But how could it?  It is indisputable that the Constitution was sold to the people in the ratifying conventions in a particular way.  Federalists refuted expansive interpretations of the general welfare clause, brought forth by concerned Antifederalists, with reminders that the federal government would have only the powers “expressly delegated” to it (and yes, the word “expressly” was used, again and again).

Yet when the 1st Congress debated the Bill of Rights 10th amendment, both houses actively refused to insert "expressly" before "delegated to the United States by the Constitution..." 

Patrick Henry was one such skeptic, and he was thus reassured by Edmund Randolph and George Nicholas, no mean authorities. Thus any interpretation of the clause other than Madison’s couldn’t possibly be correct.  It is the ratifiers whose opinions count, as Madison explained, since what they believed themselves to be agreeing to is what binds us.

Well, without doubt this violation brought Madison and those who took his interpretation to Adam's doorstep to tar, feather and rail-bind him for signing this abhorrent 1798 act. For shame, President John Adams! 

If they had only been aware of your authority on this subject, Mr Woods, they would have done exactly that, wouldn't they? Because you grant me to power to silence, I reciprocate by granting you the power of time travel so you can go back to lead the charge.

The fact that years later the Constitution is violated cannot undo the brute fact that that document was ratified with this particular understanding.  The word “ratifiers” appears nowhere in the O’Rourke piece.  There is a reason for that.

Yes, there is a reason. I didn't think to take your position, even though it carries authority with the angry dissenters who would have tarred Adams but for the want of your leadership. 

Jefferson said that no matter how long the British had oppressed us, the length of time of such oppression would not have legitimized it.  Indeed.

Nice touch. However, Jefferson administered the healthcare act for 8 oppressive years, subjecting sailors to the indignity of having health insurance and care. That bastard, indeed!

If I entered into a contract with Paul O’Rourke on the basis of a particular understanding, and then turned around and violated that understanding, first in small things and then in great, what would he say?  Would he say, “Hey, you’re violating our agreement”?  If so, I guess I could come back with, “You’re living in the past, man!  I’ve been violating that agreement for years!”

We were both there when the contract was written, obviously, and certainly, before signing, agreed upon the terms. You later decided to sell it to yourself as meaning something not written and, after years, apparently talked the ink right off the page in your mind. Eventually you decide to dispute the contract based on how you feel about it. This momentuous decision will be made by the court -- not the Supreme Court, but Judge Judy, who will explain the written claim prevails over how you want to remember it.

However, if you fear I may back out of an actual contract, I assure you my promise to grant you time travel will not be rescinded. If you want it in ink, we'll write up a contract. If I violate our agreement, I’ll point to the clause buried in small print and blame Einstein and the failure of the space-time continuum. Yes, a weak case, but so is yours.

Alexander Hamilton is cited on behalf of O’Rourke’s interpretation of the general welfare clause.  Prior to ratification, as I show in my 33 Questions book, Hamilton had taken a much less expansive view of the clause.  Once the Constitution was safely ratified, he came out in favor of the position O’Rourke cites.  Does that not strike you as a bit, well, sneaky?  Why should we take Hamilton’s post-ratification view as the definitive one?  Wouldn’t it make far more sense to cite the view Hamilton actually peddled to the public at the time of ratification?

Hamilton’s post-ratification version is the operative one, and so definitive until otherwise ruled. You are peddling Madison’s view. How’s it selling?

Certainly an argument so strong, so authoritative, so certain in its singular validity would be the one used to defeat the constitutional aberration of the Affordable Care Act. I’m still looking for that general welfare challenge...did it get ran out on a rail also?

Would it be that The People; the Sovereign; the Majority, wouldn’t want Social Security and Medicare to fall as well? Because if the ACA were defeated on the general welfare issue, those programs would fall also. It seems Cuccinelli has a healthy fear of the Sovereign Rulers of America, and thus the very narrow commerce clause challenge.

The Constitution, Ron Paul claims, and you agree, clearly doesn't allow the government involvement in healthcare as it's not specific to the enumerated powers. That would be a far more potent case, it seems...if it were a case to be made. Your “side” doesn’t have the courage of your convictions, apparently.

Also, why stop with adopting Hamilton’s post-ratification view of the general welfare clause?  Why not adopt Hamilton’s whole program?  We could have presidents elected for life, senators elected for life, state governors appointed by the president, etc.  Hamilton also favored enforcement of the Sedition Act.  Oh, and you know how the Sedition Act was justified?  With the general welfare clause!

Why stop there? Let’s have free cheeseburgers on Tuesdays,  for Wimpy's sake! Let's build steel roofs over every American  house, as certainly the sky is falling! Oh, the horror! Oh, the Calamity! Oh, the specious Parade of Horribles; the Slippery Slope of Slanderous Sedition!

Then we read about Joseph Story, who adopted Hamilton’s post-ratification view of the general welfare clause, and whose views we are urged to adopt.  We are not told that Story had opponents.  But he did.  Abel Upshur mercilessly dismantled Story in his book A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature and Character of Our Federal Government. Story’s view of the Constitution was long ago exploded as unhistorical; see James McClellan’s Joseph Story and the American Constitution: A Study in Political and Legal Thought.  His comments on the general welfare clause, written before Madison’s notes from the convention had been made public, are rooted in highly debatable inferences from the constitutional text.

Yet Story’s version has "fooled" the Supreme Court, several times now, as there have been many acts not "expressly" delagated in the enumerated powers. "Fooled" as well were the 1^st Congress and George Washington (First Bank of the United States) and the 5^th Congress and Adams (Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen) Social Security, Medicare...there has been a 220 year parade of fools, waiting only for you to instruct them to perform an about-face.

On what authority do you demand this about-face? You have what you swear is a verbal contract that is superior to, and thus should effectively delete what is in the written one. And oh yes, your honor, it's over 223 years old, and we've not been enforcing it, and the People don't want it.

I have no problem knowing your statement of Story being "exploded as unhistorical" is just more overblown hyperbole, as I see a trend developing.

Continuing with O’Rourke, why is it impossible for the Supreme Court to have been wrong in U.S. v. Butler when it held that the taxing power was not limited by the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8?  The whole justices-as-infallible-overlords thing is a bit creepy. 

Yet the ruling in Butler is the prevailing interpretation of general welfare, constitutionally speaking, and logically, if one can read English. It isn’t impossible they were wrong, as the concept of wrong is subjective. They are right on the logic and construction, beyond a reasonable doubt. Further exacerbating to your position is they're not final because they're right -- they're right because they're final. The writing on the wall reads “Story’s version rules.” That has far more impact than “creepy justices were wrong.”

       I have a sponsor for the next element of Woods' reply:                                      

Moreover, in that decision the Court overturns the Agricultural Adjustment Act on the grounds that it involved the exercise of a power not delegated to the federal government by the states. Is O’Rourke really of the view that the federal government has no authority over agriculture?  I doubt it.  So he dissents from the most critical part of this case. 

He does? Show me, because I know him, and he never mentions agriculture, or anything other than the subject of general welfare, nor does he express dissent. Let the platoon of non sequiturs regroup and charge again!

Why does he jump up and down with glee regarding one aspect of the decision and remain perfectly silent about the other?

Because the issue being discussed was the first time court affirmed meaning of general welfare. It had nothing to do with post  hoc rebuttals that attempt to link the agricultural subject of Butler to the point O’Rourke was addressing as a laughably fallacious inference that accepting one part means one must accept or reject both.

Moreover, that by addressing one means both must be, and that, either way, it means anything to the point. I do enjoy watching sophistry, though.

Then to read that the Founders weren’t classical liberals and that this is just a right-wing myth, well, that’s a bit much.  Of course, the Founders were not a homogeneous blob, and some favored more power for government than others.  But O’Rourke’s insistence on calling the Constitution and Declaration “liberal,” by which he intends the modern, 21st-century, Barack Obama meaning, is beyond absurd.

Now more absurd offerings of facts not in evidence. I take it your area of study is history, not law. More to the point you're trying to make is it's obvious your area of study has never been political philosophy.

No, O'Rourke intends the version of liberalism that didn’t degrade into libertarianism. While some would refer to all pre-20^th century liberalism as “classical,” others, like me, to avoid confusion with the “classical liberalism” of Bastiat, which is the true root of libertarianism, would refer to Locke's (as one example) philosophy as liberalism, Bastiat’s as classical and, beginning with the Progressive movement -- communitarian, or modern liberalism. However, it's all liberalism.

The fraud of describing the founders, the founding Americans and the founding states as under the influence of “classical liberalism” as the root of libertarianism is easily exposed by the above facts. Also by the fact that post-revolution for-profit corporations, that were chartered by state legislatures were subjected to what you would certainly consider onerous, un-laissez faire, un-free market restrictions which is absolutely antithetical to libertarianism. Those restrictions were to ensure liberty, not theorize it as an abstraction.

O’Rourke’s ignorant comments about the words “We, the People” alone prove he is not entitled to an opinion. This is not an example of “collectivism.”

“Collectivism” was a poke at a joke. Why indeed would a libertarian like Ron Paul approve of such non-individualist collectivism as displayed in We, the People? The only collectivism displayed among libertarians is collectivist thinking. But to be fair, it’s a highly individualistic collectivism. You only show you aren’t entitled to, or perhaps just don’t have, a sense of humor.

The original words were “We, the States.”  This was changed by the Committee on Style, without a single dissenting vote, so it obviously did not involve a matter of substance.

No dissenting vote means it wasn’t a matter of substance? There’s no evidence of that in your statement, as it’s not logical to presume one implies the other. I notice you do that a lot. War injury?

  “We, the People” refers to the peoples of the states — the people of Massachusetts, the people of Virginia, etc.  What is supposed to be “collectivist” about that?  No originalist denies — and indeed all of them affirm — that the U.S. was the creation of a group of separate and distinct societies.

In case you need evidence that Jefferson was indeed a classical liberal rather than a liberal in the tradition of Hillary Clinton, you can find it in the excellent new book by Marco Bassani, Liberty, State, and Union: The Political Theory of Thomas Jefferson.

Here again you add to the confusion that makes many libertarians think America was founded upon libertarianism. This is epidemic, so we at the Center for Unease Control kindly ask you to quit infecting those nice libertarians with delusions of founding father fraternity. Jefferson feared corporate intrusions on liberty -- libertarians embrace them.  

That you restrain yourself from saying "Sillary" Clinton, though, is admirable, given the attempt at elevating right-wing adrenaline levels. 

In the comments section of the O’Rourke piece you can see further how confused our author is.  He thinks we have seen a major move in the direction of the free market over the past 30 years, and that this is the reason for our current problems.  If that were so, I wonder why the most free-market economists were the ones most likely to predict the crash.  Were they repudiating their own position?  Or did they see something a teensy bit non-free-market in the activities of the Federal Reserve, the government interventions into the housing market, the regulations that make it impossible to discipline management at financial firms, the prudential regulation that encouraged everyone to flock into AAA-rated MBS, etc.?

I saw unwise deregulation, overabundance of loose money, artificially low interest rates, ridiculous home value increases and was also convinced those prescient economists were correct. I see in your paragraph the false assertion that government, not private lenders and investment banks, caused the toxic subprime bubble. I guess all religions have their intentional blind spots, yours where the destructive results of deregulation apply.

It’s better for you to call those policies that advanced our decline “neoliberalism,” a reawakening of "classical liberalism" as it’s more palatable than saying libertarian. After all, to be fair, it was only that part of libertarianism the fraudsters like and spend a lot to ensure is well-funded. Isn’t Cato’s motto: You get the ideology you pay for?

As usual, Ron Paul was right, and his snooty critics, who insist on picking on the rare non-drone in politics, dead wrong.

Yet this snooty critic has a Supreme Court affirmed interpretation of general welfare and the 1798 and 1965 federal single payer healthcare plans in his hand.

You have a specious case for what is an inoperative opinion on general welfare and an assertion those healthcare enacting founders violated the Constitution.

Before shoving your chips to the middle of the table, keep in mind I’m holding the cards of “what is,” and you’re holding “what if ?” If you’ll check Hoyle, you’ll find that two operative, constitutionally affirmed, legally applicable facts trump what you’re holding in your hand, which is basically not much more than fingers.

Are you sure you want to push all-in with that hand?