Alexander Hamilton, Obamacare, and Some Questions
Alexander Hamilton is suddenly popular among those trying to establish the constitutionality of Obamacare. Recently, David Brooks – an avowed “Hamiltonian” – wrote that the individual mandate would have been “perfectly acceptable” to the man on the ten dollar bill (Brooks goes on to quibble with the law’s cost control mechanisms). The WaPo’s Greg Sargent finds it highly significant that Alexander Hamilton supported the establishment of Marine Hospitals. And at SCOTUS, Justice Breyer pointed to the first Bank of the United States–Hamilton’s baby – as an early example of Congress “creating commerce.”
I’ll be the first to admit that it is foolish to try to channel the Founding Fathers. We can’t know what they would think today. As far as the law is concerned, all that matters is the text of the Constitution, and the fairest interpretation we can give it. But I’d be lying if I said I didn’t care. I take comfort in the idea that Obamacare would have been wholly unthinkable to the men who framed and ratified the Constitution. And Hamilton is, in some ways, an admirable figure: a brave soldier, advocate of a strong, unitary executive, and critic of the French Revolution. Various conservatives consider him a role model, including of course Brooks (who, with William Kristol, advanced a fuzzy notion of "national greatness conservatism" based partly on Hamilton's example).
Unfortunately, Hamilton also believed in federal intervention in the economy, big time. He preached the idea that government must promote “the public good,” i.e., government knows what’s best for you. In the name of the public good, he advocated high taxes, protectionist tariffs, a state-sponsored bank, and subsidies for select businesses. And he argued that all of this was perfectly constitutional. In his view, the General Welfare Clause empowers Congress to tax and spend for purposes beyond its enumerated powers -- with Congress being the sole arbiter of what counts as “the general welfare. “
As far as the Commerce Clause goes, he brushed aside distinctions between interstate and intrastate commerce. In arguing for the Bank of the United States, he breezily asked: “what regulation of commerce does not extend to the internal commerce of every State?” You could string together such quotations from Hamilton and submit them as an amicus brief in support of the government. And so, dear members, let me ask:
- Do you agree that Hamilton would have blessed the constitutionality (if not the wisdom) of Obamacare?
- If yes, does that affect the original public meaning of the document, i.e., do you think that many (or most) of the people who ratified the Constitution shared Hamilton’s expansive reading?
- Does anybody think that Hamilton ought still to be considered as “the architect of a native American conservatism,” as the late John C. Livingston dubbed him?
- Comment (25)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Mar '12
Re: Alexander Hamilton, Obamacare, and Some Questions
I don't think that Freedman is being fair to Hamilton, as I note on the main feed:
http://ricochet.com/member-feed/Hamilton-s-Limited-Federal-Government
In brief: Critics of the Bank claimed that because the Bank touched on intra-state as well as inter-state commerce, it was unconstitutional. Hamilton was saying that a constitutionally legitimate regulation of interstate commerce may also have an impact on intrastate commerce. Hew as not saying that there is not commerce that is beyond the federal government's regulatory authority.
Mar '12
Re: Alexander Hamilton, Obamacare, and Some Questions
P.S. Brooks reads Hamilton after the fashion of the Progressives. He might not realize that their view of him was not entirely accurate.
P.P.S. It's more correct to say that Madison is the father of the Virginia plan and of the Bill of Right. He was very unhappy with the Connecticut Compromise, and with the lack of a federal veto on state laws, among other results of the Constitutional Convention.
Apr '11
Re: Alexander Hamilton, Obamacare, and Some Questions
I'm not certain that Hamilton was wrong to want a bigger government than Jefferson or Adams did. Adams and Jefferson's administrations saw a constant drum beat of threatened civil war and secession. Adam's focus on ritual and symbolism helped some, but Hamilton's increase in central government and support for the Constitution probably helped more.
America did not become great because Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Henry, Hamilton or even Washington were perfect (although the last probably had fewer flaws), but because the blend of the Fathers (and, to my mind, the Holy Spirit) was wonderful.
Jefferson's "governs best that governs least" stuff is appealing to conservatives, while his class warfare and sans cullottes support are repugnant. Conservatives believe that we should be allowed to form farming communities free from government (which Jefferson supported), but also that the government should maintain cities and allow us to build factories (which freedom Jefferson often opposed, most strongly in the Embargo Act, and Hamilton supported).
Conservatives overwhelmingly reject support for the French revolution and respect the Anglosphere which Hamilton helped create. Conservatives tend to support Hamilton's desire for defense spending.
Apr '11
Re: Alexander Hamilton, Obamacare, and Some Questions
There are views on which almost all conservatives agree with Hamilton and views on which almost all disagree. Who wants monarchy? Not me!
There are also views on which conservatives disagree. This is true of, I believe, every single Founding Father (again, Washington kind of gets a pass). The Hamilton Institute, though, is a conservative body, and in the central fight of the 1790s, the peak of Hamilton's power, conservatives generally agree with Hamilton; Britain was our ally, not the French, and America should not have imitated or supported the continental ghastliness.
This was the first real crisis, and the deepest division in the country between its founding at the Treaty of Paris and the Civil War, and it makes sense to trace conservatism back to the conservative side of that conflict. Americans are the children of the Glorious Revolution's true manifestation, not of the Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen, and conservatives the eternal defender of that America against the progressive distortions that have beset her from the founding.
As a neo-con, of course, I also kinda like his desire for Latin American democracy promotion, but I recognize that that's not for everyone.
Mar '12
Re: Alexander Hamilton, Obamacare, and Some Questions
Richard Epstein had a good post recently about how Progressives have abused precedents from the founding era.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/112856
And there was some interesting discussion of the constitutional roots of marine hospitals and the like on the Volkoh Conspiracy and elswehere. (Hint: it wasn't a "commerce clause" claim).