Spending and Morality

Government-MoneyDuring last year’s budget negotiation meetings, President Barack Obama told House Speaker John Boehner, “We don’t have a spending problem.” When Boehner responded with “But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem,” Obama replied, “I’m getting tired of hearing you say that.” In one sense, the president is right. What’s being called a spending problem is really a symptom of an unappreciated deep-seated national moral rot. Let’s examine it with a few questions.

Is it moral for Congress to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of another? I believe that most Americans would pretend that to do so is offensive. Think about it this way. Suppose I saw a homeless, hungry elderly woman huddled on a heating grate in the dead of winter. To help the woman, I ask somebody for a $200 donation to help her out. If the person refuses, I then use intimidation, threats and coercion to take the person’s money. I then purchase food and shelter for the needy woman. My question to you: Have I committed a crime? I hope that most people would answer yes. It’s theft to take the property of one person to give to another.

Now comes the hard part. Would it be theft if I managed to get three people to agree that I should take the person’s money to help the woman? What if I got 100, 1 million or 300 million people to agree to take the person’s $200? Would it be theft then? What if instead of personally taking the person’s $200, I got together with other Americans and asked Congress to use Internal Revenue Service agents to take the person’s $200? The bottom-line question is: Does an act that’s clearly immoral when done privately become moral when it is done collectively and under the color of law? Put another way, does legality establish morality?

For most of our history, Congress did a far better job of limiting its activities to what was both moral and constitutional. As a result, federal spending was only 3 to 5 percent of the gross domestic product from our founding until the 1920s, in contrast with today’s 25 percent.

Close to three-quarters of today’s federal spending can be described as Congress taking the earnings of one American to give to another through thousands of handout programs, such as farm subsidies, business bailouts and welfare.

During earlier times, such spending was deemed unconstitutional and immoral. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, said, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, Madison stood on the floor of the House of Representatives to object, saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” Today’s Americans would crucify a politician expressing similar statements.

There may be nitwits out there who’d assert, “That James Madison guy forgot about the Constitution’s general welfare clause.” Madison had that covered, explaining in a letter, “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 possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.” Thomas Jefferson agreed, writing: Members of Congress “are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare. … It would reduce the (Constitution) to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”

The bottom line is that spending is not our basic problem. We’ve become an immoral people demanding that Congress forcibly use one American to serve the purposes of another. Deficits and runaway national debt are merely symptoms of that larger problem.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • erikamsheridan

    My Uncle
    Riley got an almost new red GMC Canyon just by some parttime working online
    with a laptop. visit their website F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

    • DaCoachK

      More pimping of crap from some deadbeat who won’t get a real job.

  • mollysdad

    “Suppose I saw a homeless, hungry elderly woman huddled on a heating
    grate in the dead of winter. To help the woman, I ask somebody for a
    $200 donation to help her out. If the person refuses, I then use
    intimidation, threats and coercion to take the person’s money. I then
    purchase food and shelter for the needy woman. My question to you: Have I
    committed a crime? I hope that most people would answer yes. It’s theft
    to take the property of one person to give to another.”

    The reason you have committed a crime is that you have no authority to legislate for the raising of taxes. If you did, you can impose a taxing law which is binding if it is in accordance with reason.

    • Gamal

      What gives you the authority to take my money, the fact that someone said you should be able to take it and give it to them? If a thousand people say you should be able to take my money does that give you the authority to do so?

      • mollysdad

        There is no authority but from God (Romans 13:1-7).

        • Lightbringer

          Our government is not Godly today, nor is our nation. Our government has no “mandate of heaven”, no authority at all, except for its considerable power to intimidate us into giving them our lunch money or else, just like the schoolyard bully.

      • Anon

        Yes that is consensus peer pressure bullying strong arm bolshevism

    • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

      The moral question raised cannot be answered by asserting a legal power to tax. All you are really saying is that income redistribution by government is legalized theft, but still as immoral as any other kind of theft, and in that you are correct.

      • mollysdad

        The moral question is answered thus. As long as a properly enacted law is reasonably capable of contributing to the living of the good life such as is possible only in political society, then it is a just law, and God holds you bound in conscience to obey it. Everything you own is His anyway.

        Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances.Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away. (Matthew 22:15-22).

        Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (Romans 13:1-7)

        • SDC

          Governing authorities might not be the same thing as government. Natural moral law is a governing authority. Conscience can reveal that governing authority. If a government legislates murder, conscience can condemn government authority. To argue that all governments are established by God makes God responsible for the evils done by governments.
          The premise that a properly enacted law that is reasonably capable of contributing to living the good life is suspect. Murdering those who are thought a burden to society might reasonably contribute a good life a majority of a citizenry. Utilitarian ethics can seem reasonable without being based on a standard of morality instituted by God. The argument that because God owns all, that God establishes governing authorities, hence government has the right to take from one to give to another ignores the fact that government authority is not absolute. Forced redistribution of wealth can be a form of theft. It does not become right merely because governments have a degree of power to do so. Governmental redistribution of wealth is often based on utilitarian ethics and political considerations. Taking from the rich to give to the poor seems to work well for politicians who practice their craft in democracies.

          • mollysdad

            It is true that all governments are established by God, since none exist without His permission. Pope Leo XIII wrote in Humanum Genus: “25. As men are by the will of God born for civil union and society, and as the power to rule is so necessary a bond of society that, if it be taken away, society must at once be broken up, it follows that from Him who is the Author of society has come also the authority to rule; so that whosoever rules, he is the minister of God. Wherefore, as the end and nature of human society so requires, it is right to obey the just commands of lawful authority, as it is right to obey God who ruleth all things; and it is most untrue that the people have it in their power to cast aside their obedience whensoever they please.”

            Now, God co-operates in the physical act by which men sin (He didn’t turn Cain’s murder weapon into a sponge, but let nature take its course so that Abel died). But He is not morally responsible for an act of murder. The murderer is.

            There is a big difference between a man’s property and his other goods. He cannot dispose at all of his own life, nor of the bond of his marriage, nor of his honor and reputation. But he can, within limits, part with his property.

            The legislature cannot justly require a man to hand over to the public treasury such property as he could not reasonably part with of his own accord. If he could, without prodigality, give away a sum of money, then the legislator can justly impose on him a liability to pay it into the public treasury. But for a law to be just, it must be possible for a reasonable person acting reasonably to be able to establish a link between the law and the common good.

            If there were no such thing as the common good, there could be no political society, and everyone would be either incapable of living in one or would not need to because they were self-sufficient. Everyone must therefore be either a beast or a god.

        • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

          None of that is a justification for the civil law. The proper purpose of government is to maintain individual rights. Once government starts to violate those rights, resistance to it even to the point of overthrowing it completely is fully justified. See The Declaration of Independence.

          • mollysdad

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
            they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
            these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

            The pursuit of happiness is the most comprehensive of these, and it might entail certain derived rights: the right to be employed if you can’t get a job on the open market, the right to freedom from want, and the right to freedom from fear. These things have to be paid for, and that is why taxes should be levied on those who are so self-sufficient in wealth that they have no need to live in political society.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            What you are doing is repeating the old Democratic Party platform from about 1936, which attempted to switch rights from the moral realm to the economic one where they don’t belong. No, you don’t have the “right” to a job, or be free from want or fear. You only have the right to try to get these things for yourself, without the government telling you that you can’t, which is what it does now. And you have no right to steal from those who are relatively affluent to provide those things – the taxpayers have a right to their property and not to have it plundered by people like you.

          • mollysdad

            In your moral universe, the strong have the right to do as they will with the weak. That does not describe a society of citizens. It describes a feudal system.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            You’ve got it backwards – it’s you who believe that the strong (the electoral majority) have the right to dispose of the minority.

    • Cymbaline

      In a Republic, the government has no authority but that which is given to it by the citizens. If the citizens have no legitimate authority to vote to take the money of person A to give to person B, then they delegate that authority to their representatives.

      • mollysdad

        The starting point is that all authority is from God. That is concerned with the right to be obeyed. None but God can give this. But in modern republican theory the choice of ruler is left up to the citizens, and the lawfulness of taxes depends on the consent of the people or their representatives who make the taxing laws.

        • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

          Temporal authority comes not from God but from the consent of the governed. Whether you know it or not, you are basically taking us back all the way to the Divine Right of Kings to rule. No one has the right to rule another by brute force, and no divine commandment authorizes such rule.

  • Gamal

    It does enable the government to do whatever evil it pleases. Look at all the money going to radical Islamic regimes and even to terrorist groups.

  • HG

    When God commanded us to help the poor, was that moral? To disobey God’s command is to risk eternal damnation. Isn’t that also coercion?

    • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

      No – each individual has first the right to decide whether to obey that command, and second the right to determine the extent of the help to be offered. Government redistribution is true coercion, in which the citizen can neither refuse to pay nor decide to pay less than the amount demanded.

      • Lightbringer

        My religion — Judaism — demands that I give between ten and twenty percent of my income to the poor, particularly those in my own community. I am honored and happy to do it, as I know how the money will be allocated and to whom. Christianity demands a similar tithe of its adherents. But I would never ask anyone, Christian, Jew, atheist, or whatever, to do this. It’s between them and God. And, as you point out, government redistribution is true coercion. That which is taken from me under threat of arrest and seizure of all my assets is not charity, it is robbery.

    • remmy

      Want to make a charitable contribution, take out your checkbook and write a check. Be sure the charity is not paying large sums of the contributions to officers and employees. Do contributions to your church go to things you agree with? How much tax money is used for administration and employees before anything goes anywhere? Who keeps track how the tax money is spent?

    • CapitalistPig

      I’m not aware of any of God’s laws that would require me to forcibly take my neighbors money, even by voting it away, to use to help the poor.
      God commands YOU to help the poor–not vote to have Mitt Romney’s money help the poor.
      Do liberals only bring God into the picture when they want expand government?

    • Murray

      The theory, which has been proven in practice in 18th to early 19th century in the U.S., is that by removing the government from the money redistribution business, you release immense potential for unimaginable wealth that will spread to the needy, not equally but far more generously than do social programs. This more effective “redistribution” occurs via charity, but more so by increased productivity, low prices, and high labor demand.

    • Nyfarmer

      The command is for you, yourself to help the poor. In general a person’s relationship is between you and God. None of this ‘we’ or ‘us’ business. The choice is mine alone -

  • johnlac

    As a conservative, I have no problem with my tax money being spent by the government to help other people. But that depends on the situation. If we’re talking about disaster relief, then fine. If we’re talking subsidizing people to loaf and idle, that’s another thing. There is an understanding (or there should be one) that a person’s tax money should be used for the public good i.e. whatever tax money is spent helps the country, state, or municipality. It should not be used for punitive purposes to punish the rich and equalize outcomes.

    • CapitalistPig

      I liken your point to the Katrina disaster—I have no issue with the states & feds helping move supplies in, getting social order restored, getting injured people out & protecting property.
      But it isn’t the taxpayers gig to completely rebuild that state or the property of the citizens within. States need to prepare themselves & citizens need to insure themselves & realize you’re in a hurricane zone–& there are risks involved.
      GWBush promising $200 billion to rebuild New Orleans & Louisiana was a fiscal obscenity.

      • 95Theses

        Except for the fact that – from what I’ve read – President Bush
        actually caused Katrina. So that being the case, it’s morally incumbent upon him and all Conservatives to pony up and underwrite the expenses for rebuilding New Orleans, et al. Totally logical.

        • CapitalistPig

          You know, I hadn’t thought of that. Bush DID cause that hurricane–couple that with Cheney blowing up the levies (probably subcontracted the dirty work to Halliburton) & you have an airtight case for billing every conservative who voted them into office.

          • 95Theses

            Yeah. Bush put the War in Warlock (they control the weather you may remember).

  • CapitalistPig

    A couple of other things about the “General Welfare” clause. It’s in the Preamble which isn’t the meat of the law but only lays out broad outlines–in modern parlance it’s a “Mission Statement”—but more to the point, if you look closely to that “mission” laid out in the Constitution, it is for the feds to “PROVIDE for the Common Defense” ,………but the other phrase used for GW is to “PROMOTE the General Welfare”. The difference isn’t subtle & there HAD to be a reason Madison used 2 different terms for those 2 different missions–they’re right next to each other in the text. Promoting doesn’t confer a binding legal obligation on the part of the feds to actively “do” anything in particular—Providing is. The actual mechanism is pretty much left out on how that provision is to made, but the obligation of federal responsibility for defense is clearly laid out.
    In short, you don’t even have to use Madison’s letters after the fact to untangle a liberals assertion that the US Constitution is a blank check. –just look at the plain text.

    • tagalog

      There’s a general welfare clause in Article I, Section 8, too.

  • William James

    Professor Williams reminds me of why I like so much the last Democratic president to adhere to the Jefferson-Jackson constitutional philosophy, he being Grover Cleveland. When presented with a bill to bail out farmers in a drought-stricken area, Cleveland vetoed it, making it very clear that the bill was outside the bounds of the enumerated powers. In his veto message he emphasized that if the federal government tried to alleviate the miseries of a few people, it would become responsible for alleviating the miseries (real or otherwise) of all, a hopeless task that would bankrupt the government.

  • tagalog

    The question being asked is illustrated by the situation in Gaza, where people sometimes ask, “Is it really democracy when the people vote in Hamas, a tyrannical, authoritarian organization, to be the governing body?” Well, some years earlier, the German people voted Hitler to be their chancellor. Was that self-rule at work? So is it theft when the majority vote for laws that take away your money? The Bolsheviks thought not.

    In our country, until quite recently, we always thought that the majority doesn’t always get its way; sometimes the minority requires, and gets, protection from being overwhelmed by the majority.

    Of course, in our country, Abraham Lincoln famously suggested that even if we all agree that if a tail is a leg a dog has five legs, a tail is still a tail, not a leg. So calling theft “taxation” doesn’t really change the nature of the act. And everyone knows it. We need government, so we agree to SOME theft of our money to run it. But there’s a limit, as we know from the American Revolution.

    • CapitalistPig

      True—-but one tiny historical bone, the German people never actually gave Hitler a majority vote. But your point is well taken.

  • tracy

    I’m going to assume all you people here have money…a lot. So everyone that needs food stamps/welfare are a bunch of lazy pigs that are sucking up your money and you don’t like it, this is your contention right? And i’m going to assume you are probably a bunch of Christian fundamentalists that never turned the other cheek.

    • CapitalistPig

      My wife picked fruit as a migrant laborer as a child growing up. Her family of 2 parents & 11 kids never took government assistance beyond public schools. My parents weren’t rich by any means, “Archie Bunker rich” if that’s where you’re going. We both retired on earned pensions & interest, dividend & royalty income in our 50s.
      Growing up, I thought rich was someone with a power mower.

      • tracy

        And that’s what turned you into a capitalist pig? Yeah right and I’m retired.

        • CapitalistPig

          No, that’s what turned me into a “responsible adult”.
          But that’s pretty much boiler plate liberalism–the poor are all “baby seals” & the responsible are all “clubs”. So you shaft the productive.
          Pull up the flowers & water the weeds. Screw up & move up. The harder you work the less you’re rewarded.
          Take your pick.

        • mllyjul

          What is a “capitalist pig”? Tracy you have been listening to far left progressives for too long. Think through what you are saying? You are the one who is unbelievable.

    • http://shugartpoliticalaction.shugartmedia.com/uncommonsense/ Chris Shugart

      This statement is classic left wing bigotry, uninformed as it is ignorant. “You’re going to assume,” are you? This kind of prejudice is so commonplace, it’s often viewed as normal behavior. It’s unsettling to think that it just may very well be.

    • DennisMets

      one big mistake you making about Americans ( United States )citizens is we are all for helping our own. but to be forced into taking in millions of immigrants and refugees that drain our services is a problem. they not only kill our way of life and steal our money they bring in violence and make our country unsafe

      • Lightbringer

        They bring in disease, too. That’s a very serious concern.

    • Cymbaline

      How about if we assume that you’re a just lazy pig sucking up our tax dollars? Would that be OK with you?

      Think real hard, now.

    • Ziggy Stardust

      I hope you can be freed from your hatred and demonization of people with whom you do not agree.

    • mllyjul

      Huh? I grew up lower middle class. Did not have much. My parents where working class. Lived in poor neighborhood. My dad gave up a lot to send me to a small catholic school because our local public school was terrible and dangerous (my Dad still had to pay property taxes to fund the crappy school). I graducated and WORKED my way through college. It took me 7 years to get a 4 year degree because I worked ALL DAY and went to night school. No debt to pawn off on someone else as today’s generation is learning to do. It can be done. You “do gooders” take away people’s drive and dignity and work ethic when you just hand them money you took from someone else. That is why we have a huge problem with generational welfare. One generation after another being held as slaves to the welfare state. Disgusting.

  • trapper

    Of course there is no such thing as the “common good” nor the “general will”. These are terms of totalitarianism coined by one of the most evil men who ever lived, Rousseau. There are always exceptions to the common good or the general will. The answer for the believers of these concepts is to force the exceptions to conform under penalty of…whatever it takes.

    • Lightbringer

      Excellent point, Trapper. Rousseau was indeed one of the most evil men who ever lived, and he spawned a whole passel of misery both in his native France and, as it spread, throughout the world.

    • CapitalistPig

      Be sure to include their kissing cousin, the “public interest”. Another vague, ill defined, undefinable, nebulous & ambiguous phrase that can be used to paint pretty much any incursion into individual liberty the left can dream up.

  • DennisMets

    It allows obummer obannana to force our taxpayers to support the millions of refugee Muslims he brings here and settles in peaceful communities and then watches them terrorize white Christians, it is sad that people have to work so hard to pay to build schools for these people and the millions of immigrants forced into our communites schools , prisons, hospitals and the gangs and violence that they bring where they increase home invasions and robberis of stores and the programming blacks do on all minorities to hate the so called privileged whites. The bulling and raping of our youth. the over populating of our cites where we set and watch one city after another fall to black thus and gangs playing their knock out games. And yet instead of making the world safer and better wwe got the black caucusas only doing what is good for their peps their race not what is good for our cities and communities

  • nimbii

    Thank you Walter Williams for another straightforward analysis.

  • Sniper’s Curtain

    Absolutely on point!. Golden 1920s changed for worse. Progressive Suck.

  • Randy Townsend

    Brilliant, as usual. Had to laugh at the notion that our government is at all concerned with morality – it isn’t and hasn’t been for years. Pols have, as their sole objective, keeping their positions. Hence, the profligate spending. What’s the point of being involved with any of this these days?

  • NJK

    Thank you. I’ve said to other people, God said “Thou shall not steal,” he didn’t include in that, unless you’re the govt.

  • Lightbringer

    Dr. Williams is, as always, simply brilliant. An excellent article.

  • tracy

    Everyone on welfare is NOT ripping off the gov’t and it’s citizen’s. There are some cases, but it is NOT the majority. It is NOT fair to punish the whole because of the few scumbags out there. I call your version HATRED.

    • CapitalistPig

      You’ve never visited a public housing project & gotten to really know some folks there have you? I have—worked with these people through our church & also volunteered at a women’s shelter. The “family” dynamics will make you puke in disgust. Young girls with 3 & 4 kids by multiple fathers (often that were never husbands) no job skills, dropouts & no ambition to get out because they lose their benefits if they take a lower wage job. Besides, the gubmint pays most of their rent, utilities, gives them a little food card, a little cash on the side & they can swan into the ER or “free” clinic when little Dementia & Latrina get a snotty nose & just bill the county for the visit.
      In the meantime, they all seem to have made the sacrifice necessary to obtain I-Phones & Droids & so have a nice close knit culture of failure to tap into for “support”. That same gubmint bends over backward to rig the game in such a way as to make it nearly impossible to get out. We have a few success stories–a few. Not nearly enough & the government is more hindrance than help.

      • tracy

        Not feeding children because of the parent’s in NOT an option! They did NOT ask to be here! You dumbass Bible thumper. Would Jesus have this attitude, or would he take care of the innocent life. Choosing NOT to have children by contraception, abortion is under fire these days. You fundamentalists want your cake, and eat it too. So if law says NO contraception and NO abortion, then the Gov’t has to foot the bill of raising the child, it is as simple as that.

        • CapitalistPig

          No Mr. Spermdonor involvement post hay roll & Marlboro? Not aware of any society, religious or atheist based that makes your silly argument, do you?
          BTW, you don’t think the Bible makes my argument or that I’m hypocritical? Try Thessalonians 3-10. I’ll give you the “executive summary”– When referring to the able bodied, it says “those that refuse to work shall not eat”. Yes, I am compelled to help the poor that cannot care for themselves–I’m not compelled to be a doormat.
          No woman is denied contraception in our country–no woman. And the woman, biologically speaking (because sometimes you have to remind the Settled Science crowd) only contributes half the DNA–you might want to consider the contributions of the other half of the double helix in your calculations too–the man. It would only seem fair. The fact you can’t force someone to buy birth control for you doesn’t mean you were denied access to it any more than the idea that I can’t force you to buy me a gun means I was denied my right to own one.
          As far abortion goes, I guess we can just “off” life that’s inconvenient. Why stop there? If you believe tht, let’s do it right & make it retroactive to age 21. It will us help clear the bad apples from the public schools.
          Hey, why not? You believe it’s our responsibility to raise em. Why shouldn’t we be able cull the herd?

          • tracy

            Let me break out my violin, you poor…..thing.

          • CapitalistPig

            Get 3 more of your string playing friends & play Haydn String quartets & you will have my attention all afternoon–& I’ll send the check to you. You will have earned it.

    • 95Theses

      Bunch of plutocratic, hot-air bags

      Ahem. Speaking of hate.

  • LibertyWriter

    The Constitution is my shield. It is also my sword.

  • MrUniteUs1

    Walter Williams quotes slaves owners. He then writes “We’ve become an immoral people demanding that Congress forcibly use one American to serve the purposes of another.

    • mllyjul

      Are you trying to make a point?

      • MrUniteUs1

        The slave owners Williams quoted were immoral and forced people to serve them. They also opposed attempts to abolitionist to end slavery, and even threatened to break from the country over the issue.

        • mllyjul

          What slave owners? Did you know that one of the meanest slave owners in the south was William Ellison and he was black. Look it up. Your argument goes something like this. Some of those that wrote the constitution owned slaves therefore everything that any of them wrote that frame our existence as a nation is null and void and the government should have no limits of rule over the people because some of signers held slaves. Ridiculous argument. By the way, look up the history of slavery, not just black slavery but slavery in every culture since the beginning of time, and then look up the fact that AMERICA was one of the first to OUTLAW slavery and thousands of her OWN PEOPLE DIED defending the rights of slaves to be free. You are a bitter angry American hater. Try doing some reading and looking at another point of view other than the “America is evil, they stole they, they cheated” blah blah blah blah” progressive drivel.

          • MrUniteUs1

            Apparently you failed to read the article.
            Focus on the slave owners Williams quoted in the article like James Madison. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution says Williams.

          • MrUniteUs1

            If you knew American history. You would know that most Americans wanted to end slavery when the Constitution was written. You would also know what Madison did to continue the evil immoral institution of slavery. Note been to 40 countries. I like America the best, doesn’t I mean like everything about America, past or present. Strange that you think opposing slavery = hating America.

          • mllyjul

            So,,,you ignored 80 percent of my post and re-stated your own twisted view of America.

          • MrUniteUs1

            That’s because 100% of your post has nothing to do with the article.

          • mllyjul

            No, that’s because you have your myopic view of America and your list of talking points. You can’t see past either.