This is a response to the "famous" Mike Church and is mostly about ridiculing his really pathetic rebuttal to something I wrote. I consider it a sort of pain in the ass. But because he devoted his attention to me, I feel I must reciprocate. Not only did Mikey try to insult my intelligence, he posted his article with the subhead: Real Men Read Ratification Debates For Original Intent.  

Now, according to American male traditions of machismo, I must de-pants Church's argument to expose his petite package. You're welcomed to join me as I perform this disagreeable task, but I'm doing this mostly for Mike, figuring it will pop up on his Google Alert. There's no sense in letting an ass-whuppin' go to waste.

I have a subhead also, Mike. I'm calling this:

Taking an Oaf to the Constitution

A couple of days after I posted Ron Paul Says Founders Ignorant of Constitution, a Google Alert arrived in my mail box. Though Mike Church advertises himself as a "world famous radio host," I hadn't heard of him, but he had heard of me. This XM Radio conservative "shock jock" had written a searing rebuttal -- Paul J. O'Rourke Finds it Easier to Smear Ron Paul Than Report Accurately. I read it with a grin, as it is possibly the most obtuse and moronic argument ever cobbled together by a supposedly higher life form. I set it aside, intending to use it someday to illustrate a common confusion among the "constitutional conservatives."

A few weeks later I looked it up by googling our names together and found that Mike had also spent some air time discussing my article with Tom Woods, a for-profit constitutional revisionist / negationist. He also wrote a response to my article, but didn't use my name in the headline. I was offended.

I haven't heard the show so I don't know exactly what transpired, but I'm sure it was the most informed and insightful discussion of founding history since Beavis and Butthead toured Washington DC. Mike's website headline referred to me as a "constitutional neophyte." It was that additional insult that prompted me to devote more attention to this clown.

But let's get back to Mike Church's other bold statement of foolishness.

Few wish to be wrong on a point of fact, but it happens, so the fallback desire is the error is slight and doesn't negate your premise. Such subtlety isn't good enough for a world famous radio host, apparently, because ol' Mike goes to great length and embellishment on his way to leaving No Doubt he doesn't have the first clue of what he's talking about.

Even worse than being wrong on an grand scale is to first identify yourself as a Master of the Constitution. Church not only does that, he presumes to be in a position to educate others, just as he "educates" me. His website is decorated with his declarations of constitutional competence, which elevates his following "lesson" to an almost unimaginable height of hilarity.

Before running Church's "lesson" through the garbage disposal, I'll explain his most monumental mental miscue. He doesn't know the difference between the first and last clauses of Article 1, Section 8 -- the Enumerated Powers of Congress.

I'm going to tailor this lesson to Mike's grade level by color coding the 2 clauses. Here's an abbreviated "enumerated powers," which you can read in full here.

Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution – Enumerated Powers of Congress

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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;   

(This is known as the Spending Clause)

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. 

(This is known as the Sweeping Clause)

To assist in Mike's comprehension, here's a convenient key.

I have pasted Mike Church, Constitutional Master's article below. I'll interrupt where needed in [bracketed bold type], but I'll let his introduction speak for itself, mostly. It serves as an unfortunate piling-on of bombast, making his stupid mistake even more tragically humorous. This is the trash-talk before a round of one-on-one where Slam Dunk Church dribbles off his foot and throws the ball over the backboard. This is Babe Rube confidently pointing at the centerfield fence and then wiffing 3 & out -- at a tee-ball game. 

Swing for the fence, Mike!

Paul J. O'Rourke Finds it Easier to Smear Ron Paul Than Report Accurately

Instead of looking for the three Constructionists in the public sphere to slay, Liberals should stick to their hypocrisies of late, most notoriously, their tacit endorsement of never-ending wars, trashing of the Constitution and exploding military spending. Blogger Paul J. O’Rourke purports to discover that Ron Paul is not a devotee of the Constitution but is in fact ignorant of the famed document. As evidence of his kangaroo court conviction O’Rourke laughably cites this:

“In 1798 the 5th Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen," a healthcare plan for privately employed merchant marine sailors. There's no substantial difference between that act and the one that established Medicare -- both being federally administered, payroll tax funded, single payer healthcare insurance plans covering a certain group of citizens.

This common, misinformed habit of citing the “general welfare Clause” to justify anything from Twinkie police at the FDA to how many legs must be on a bar stool is the stuff wannabe E.J. Dionne’s make careers out of, or was that Ezra Klein? It doesn’t matter anyway seeing as how Mr. Klein famously concluded that the Constitution “...is what, a hundred years old?” Mr. O’Rourke is only better by half in his knowledge of the document.

[This is where it starts getting good, which is to say even more overtly oblivious to history and logic.]

Let’s start the historical, fact-driven smackdown worthy of Stone Cold Steve Austin with this: The clause in ,question, really isn’t a “clause” at all. It is, as you shall see, more of a preamble under which the foregoing “enumerated powers” derive their authority.

[Mike is going to "prove" the first enumerated clause is a "preamble." He can't because it isn't, but one of the funniest elements of this is he doesn't even have a General Welfare  argument to make. Mike Church, after promising to deliver; after basing his entire effort on proving the above point; after building himself up as an authority -- doesn't even approach the subject. The hilarious thing is he thinks he does, but only because he can't tell the difference between those first and last clauses.]

To understand this, we must consult the men who ratified the Constitution for it is in what the proponents of the Constitution said was being ratified that the document draws power. Not the idle ramblings of senile old tyrants like Justice Story who never hesitated to hold amendment conventions in his SCOTUS chambers without bothering to obey Article V’s conditions for such amendments and their ratification “We must pave the way for ObamaCare” Story rumbled once to an aide, though no writer at salon.com was on hand to verify the quote.

In the GREAT RATIFICATION CONVENTION OF VA, in June of 1788, at the “New Academy of Arts & Sciences” on Shockoe Hill in Richmond VA, 184 men, =elected by Virginians, showed up to debate ratfiying “Mr Madison’s paper”. Below you will find the pertinent exchanges between Patrick Henry who “smelt a rat” and knew what Paul O’Rourke and company would do with Madison’s paper and the responses, insistence... no GUARANTEES that the new government would never, ever use the “sweeping clause” as justification for anything other than discharging the powers granted afterwards in Article I Section 8. These quotes are taken from the ratification stenographer, I have only added emphasis where needed.

[Before moving on, there are a few relevant points that should be illuminated.

• This is a discussion over ratifying the Constitution. The Bill of Rights wasn't added until later, so you'll see references to potential abuses of power involving those rights not yet secured in writing.
• Patrick Henry is objecting to having any implied powers of Congress, and wants what became the 10th amendment with NO implied powers.
• George Mason is also arguing for the addition of what became the 10th amendment.
• Virginia was one state. There were others, Mike. A few quotes from Virginia define the "Original Intent?"
  
• Church seems to think these men are in agreement, which is also funny. If we take all arguments as defining, we ask: which Original Intent do you mean, Mike?
• I use the color coding to distinguish between speakers addressing the spending or sweeping clauses. Mike, thinking they're the same, doesn't show a difference.
  

Okay, Mike, let 'er rip!]

Mr. Patrick Henry: The Charge that the “general welfare clause” gives Obama & O’Rourke power to pass ObamaCare

[ "Obamacare" isn't tax-based like Medicare, so it isn't a general welfare law. Mike, you're such a putz...]

Friday, 7 June, 1788 - If we are to have one representative for every thirty thousand souls, it must be by implication. The Constitution does not positively secure it. Even say it is a natural implication, — why not give us a right to that proportion in express terms, in language that could not admit of evasions or subterfuges? If they can use implication for us, they can also use implication against us. We are giving power; they are getting power; judge, then, on which side the implication will be used! When we once put it in their option to assume constructive power, danger will follow. Trial by jury, and liberty of the press, are also on this foundation of implication. If they encroach on these rights, and you give your implication for a plea, you are cast; for they will be justified by the last part of it, which gives them full power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry their power into execution.” Implication is dangerous, because it is unbounded: if it be admitted at all, and no limits be prescribed, it admits of the utmost extension. They say that every thing that is not given is retained. The reverse of the proposition is true by implication. They do not carry their implication so far when they speak of the general welfare — no implication when the sweeping clause comes. Implication is only necessary when the existence of privileges is in dispute. The existence of powers is sufficiently established. If we trust our dearest rights to implication, we shall be in a very unhappy situation.

[From the record: "Mr. Henry then declared a bill of rights indispensably necessary; that a general positive provision should be inserted in the new system, securing to the states and the people every right which was not conceded to the general government; and that every implication should be done away. It being now late, he concluded by observing, that he would resume the subject another time."

Now Governor Randolph explains the basic “original intent” of both clauses, and in the case of Mike Church, Constitutional Master -- tries to show that these are two separate clauses.

Read it slowly Mike, and try to concentrate.

From Tuesday June 10, 1788, 2 working days after the above.]

His Excellency Governor Edmund Randolph of VA responds  'The sweeping clause', as it is called, is much dreaded. I find that I differ from several gentlemen on this point. This formidable clause does not in the least increase the powers of Congress. It is only inserted for greater caution, and to prevent the possibility of encroaching upon the powers of Congress.

[Mike provides bold type emphasis here because he thinks he's making a point about general welfare. Hee-larious, Mikey. With the next sentence, I get the feeling Randolph is speaking directly to you.]

No sophistry will be permitted to be used to explain away any of those powers; nor can they possibly assume any other power, but what is contained in the Constitution, without absolute usurpation. Another security is that, if they attempt such a usurpation, the influence of the state governments will nip it in the bud of hope. I know this government will be cautiously watched. The smallest assumption of power will be sounded in alarm to the people, and followed by bold and active opposition. I hope that my countrymen will keep guard against every arrogation of power. I shall take notice of what the honorable gentleman said with respect to the power to provide for the general welfare. The meaning of this clause has been perverted, to alarm our apprehensions. The whole clause has not been read together. It enables Congress “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.” The plain and obvious meaning of this is, that no more duties, taxes, imposts, and excises, shall be laid, than are sufficient to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare, of the United States."

[Now Mike Church, not content with the number of times he confuses the Spending and Sweeping Clauses as the same, reaffirms his ignorance. Mike, you needn't pile on...]

George Nicholas piles on making sure every living soul in attendance understands the restrictions of the “Sweeping Clause”. "I deny, on my part, what he says with respect to the general welfare. He tells you that, under pretence of providing for the general welfare, they may lay the most enormous taxes. There is nothing in the clause which warrants this suggestion. It provides “that Congress shall have the 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.” The debts of the Union ought to be paid. Ought not the common defence to be provided for? Is it not necessary to provide for the general welfare? It has been fully proved that this power could not be given to another body. The amounts to be raised are confined to these purposes solely. Will oppressive burdens be warranted by this clause? They are not to raise money for any other purpose. It is a power which is drawn from his favorite Confederation, the 8th article of which provides “that all charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the United States, in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states, in proportion to the value of all lands, within each state, granted to or surveyed for any person, as such land, and the building and improvement thereon, shall be estimated, according to such mode as the United States, in Congress assembled, shall, from time to time, direct and appoint."

Mr. Henry in rebuttal, 14 June, 1788, is still not a fan...
Monday,June 14, 1788. "The Convention, according to the order of the day, again resolved itself into a committee of the whole Convention, to take into further consideration the proposed plan of government. Mr. WYTHE in the chair. [The 8th section still under consideration. See page 378.] Mr. HENRY thought it necessary and proper that they should take a collective view of this whole section, and revert again to the first clause. He adverted to the clause which gives Congress the power of raising armies, and proceeded as follows: To me this appears a very alarming power, when unlimited. They are not only to raise, but to support, armies; and this support is to go to the utmost abilities of the United States. If Congress shall say that the general welfare requires it, they may keep armies continually on foot. There is no control on Congress in raising or stationing them. They may billet them on the people at pleasure. This unlimited authority is a most dangerous power: its principles are despotic. If it be unbounded, it must lead to despotism; for the power of a people in a free government is supposed to be paramount to the existing power."

[ Following Patrick Henry’s statement, James Madison responded: 

“Mr. Chairman, I will endeavor to follow the rule of the house, but must pay due attention to the observations which fell from the gentleman. I should conclude, from abstracted reasoning, that they were ill founded I should think that, if there were any object which the general government ought to command, it would be the direction of the national forces.”

Translation: Patrick Henry, your brain is on fire, dude! ]

George Mason concurs with Henry and goes even farther Mr. GEORGE MASON. "Mr. Chairman, gentlemen say there is no new power given by this clause. Is there any thing in this Constitution which secures to the states the powers which are said to be retained? Will powers remain to the states which are not expressly guarded and reserved? I will suppose a case. Gentlemen may call it an impossible case, and suppose that Congress will act with wisdom and integrity. Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction on the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury? Would they not extend their implication? It appears to me that they may and will. And shall the support of our rights depend on the bounty of men whose interest it may be to oppress us? That Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise, the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction."

But again, Nicholas insists otherwise and quotes James Madison from the previous day. Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, in reply to the gentlemen opposed to the clause under debate, went over the same grounds, and developed the same principles, which Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Madison had done. "The opposers of the clause, which gave the power of providing for the general welfare, supposed its dangers to result from its connection with, and extension of, the powers granted in the other clauses. He endeavored to show the committee that it only empowered Congress to make such laws as would be necessary to enable them to pay the public debts and provide for the common defence; that this general welfare was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises, for the purpose of paying the debts and providing for the common defence, — that is, that they could raise as much money as would pay the debts and provide for the common defence, in consequence of this power.

[Now is a good time to quote what Church said he'd "prove" with this display:

"The clause in ,question, really isn’t a “clause” at all. It is, as you shall see, more of a preamble under which the foregoing “enumerated powers” derive their authority."

Church is saying "the foregoing enumerated powers," which to literate people means "the powers listed before; previously to."  So what Church is saying is the first clause is a preamble (goes before) to the foregoing (listed before) powers. Maybe his Article 1, Section 8 copy is written on a Mobius strip, or the powers are forever trying to decide which comes first. How does anyone miss something so obvious, especially when it is explained several times?

The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping clause contained no new grant of power. To illustrate this position, he observed that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was no augmentation of power. If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power? As it would grant no new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole."

[ This is the end of Mike's clown show, but Governor Randolph has one more thing to add, coming after the above quote. From the record:

Gov. RANDOLPH observed that he had some objections to the clause. He was persuaded that the construction put upon it by the gentlemen, on both sides, was erroneous; but he thought any construction better than going into anarchy. ]

Well, Mike, you really stepped off in it, didn't you? You have managed to confuse 2 separate constitutional clauses as the same. You have implied that Stone Cold Steve Austin is a limp-wrist wimp. You stated your premise, and then didn't even come close to addressing, much less proving it. If you're not sure, take my word when I say that proving the Sweeping Clause can be validly attached to the end of all the enumerated powers ( including the Spending Clause) isn't the same as "proving" the Spending Clause is a "preamble." No where in your listing of quotes does any man refer to the Spending Clause as a "preamble," or say it isn't an independent grant of power.

You attempted to insult me and a couple of others, but only proved you're a Technicolor fool.

And this mess coming from a guy who describes himself as a

"Paragon of Founding Fathers Virtue."

Paragon, Mike? I see you've gotten the words confused again. They do sound a bit alike, so in this case it's more understandable. Let me correct this error also. You are an

Octomom of Founding Fathers Virtue.

Real Men don't think the Spending Clause and Sweeping Clause are the same, or that a preamble goes before the things listed before it. Only a dainty lil' Constitutional Castrato would come up with something that oblivious.