Resurrection: Americans Awaken
David Maraniss of the Washington Post had gone down to Vanderbilt University in Nashville, where he interviewed seven young men.
In this Southern citadel of traditional patriotism, five of the seven supported the war [in the Gulf], but none was willing to fight it. “This
might sound selfish, but I think it would be a shame to put America’s best young minds on the front lines,” said one young man.
Maraniss’s piece was unusually telling; it was as if war had turned into a spectator sport, with most American homes immunized from
the reality of it all.
War in a Time of Peace
(From his Congressional testimony in opposition to the
Bank of the United States—vetoed by President A. Jackson.
Forerunner of the Federal Reserve Bank passed in 1913.)
295 U.S. 495 (1935)
It is surely a bad thing if the greatest offices should be bought. The law that permits this abuse makes wealth of more account than ability, and the whole state becomes avaricious.
[The wealthy] would probably retort what, in the fable of Antisthenes, the lions said to the hares when, in the council of beasts, the latter began clamoring for equality for all—‘Where are your claws?’
Men when under the influence of interest or passion often delude themselves thoughtlessly, and do not always acknowledge even to themselves the motives upon which they really act…
It was one of the dangers arising from this mammoth money power, that its very duties…brought it constantly in contact with members of Congress and other public functionaries and made it acquainted with their wants and enabled it to place them under obligations and create a feeling of dependence or even gratitude…
Mr. Chief Justice Hughes of the Supreme Court of the United States of America delivered the opinion of the Court…
Two preliminary points are stressed by the Government with respect to the appropriate approach to the important questions presented. We are told that the provision of the statute authorizing the adoption of codes must be viewed in light of the grave national crisis with which Congress was confronted. Undoubtedly, the conditions to which power is addressed are always to be considered when the exercise of power is challenged. Extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinary remedies. But the argument necessarily stops short of an attempt to justify action which lies outside the sphere of constitutional authority. Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power. The Constitution established a national government with powers deemed to be adequate, as they have proved to be in both war and peace, but these powers of the national government are limited by the constitutional grants. Those who act under these grants are not at liberty to transcend the imposed limits because they believe that more or different power is necessary. Such assertions of extra-constitutional authority were anticipated and precluded by the explicit terms of the Tenth Amendment…
The further point is urged that the national crisis demanded a broad and intensive cooperative effort…and that this necessary cooperation was sought… But the statutory plan is not simply one of voluntary effort. [The issue] involves the coercive exercise of the law-making power…