Are national parks constitutional?

[opebo]

3. Congress may spend money to provide for the "general Welfare of the United States" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). But the welfare must be general, not local. As Alexander Hamilton expressed this limitation: "the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending ... throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot." National parks do not meet this criterion.

Of course they do, emsworth, as they may be visited by American citizens from any state.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hah, for that matter aren't they usually matters for municipalities, not states?  There is nothing 'inherently local' about parks, and your suggestion that they are 'firmly within the sphere of the states' is just your subjective view based on the fact that you don't like federal parks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure it does, as parks serve the 'general welfare'. 

[opebo]

Of course they do, emsworth, as they may be visited by American citizens from any state.

The operation of a national park does not extend throughout the country, but rather to one particular place alone. It does not matter whether people from other states will benefit; all that matters is whether the actual operation of the system is general, not local.

This is quite meaningless.  Any bureaucratic agency will have local offices, and any government operation must take place in a physical locality, regardless of the universality of its effect.  No, the park is not at all a 'local' institution, but rather a cog in the national machine which ensures the well being of the citizenry - the Federal Government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitution does not distinguish between states and municipalities; the governments of the latter are considered extensions of the former.[/quote]

Interesting.  This is how I see the states relative to the federal government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My constitutional views are not based on what I like or dislike. I have no particular opposition to abortion, for example, and believe that it should be legal, yet recognize that the Constitution does not require it to be.
[/quote]

Sure, sure.  What good is the constitution then, if it cannot protect basic human rights?  Of course the answer is - not much.

In any case interpretation is always subjective, and in your case perhaps you don't care much for the rights of women, but bear a particular grudge against the operation of national parks.  To each his own, just don't pretend objectivity.

[opebo]

1. 'General Welfare' extends only to those national things that are outside the sphere of state government.

Clearly parks which may be visited by any americans, not just citizens of a particular state, are part of the 'general welfare'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I am aware of that horrible archaism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So if it said that the means of production should be owned by the State it would be of equal 'value' to your subjectivity?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, one is interpreting the 'original meaning' as well.

[opebo]

Uh, no, clearly they are not. You don't understand how the word 'general' was used at the time the Constitution was written, and should really quit pretending otherwise.

I know exactly what they meant.  As I said, the particular physical location of a thing - government office, etc. - has no bearing on its generality.  Even ephemeral things like principles require a legal system with physical machinery located in specific places to put it into operation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You think we all understand one another clearly?  I'd say that 'making things up' is a significant part of any interpretation.

[opebo]

I know exactly what they meant.  As I said, the particular physical location of a thing - government office, etc. - has no bearing on its generality.

The word "general," as used in the Constitution, has nothing to do with "generality." It was a synonym for "federal"; thus, people spoke of the "general government," where we would speak of the "federal government."

Therefore, unless the expenditure involves the general or federal welfare, extending throughout the union (to use Hamilton's words), it cannot be justified by the general welfare clause.

Sure, so this can include things like social security, the income tax, national parks, the army.  It really can include anything whatsoever that provides services to all americans.

[opebo]

You agree that preservation of the site is of national[/b] benefit.  That it is of benefit to the united States and not to some particular States that makes it general, rather than specific or local in scope.

That is not the original understanding of the clause. The meaning of the word "welfare" is a political question, not a judicial one. But the meaning of the word "general" is not.

How can the meaning of a word in the constitution (or a law) not be a judicial question?

[opebo]

How can the meaning of a word in the constitution (or a law) not be a judicial question?

The word "welfare" implies judgment on whether a particular action is beneficial or not--an inherently legislative, political, and subjective determination, not an objective judicial one.

Regardless, the interpretation of the meaning of the word is done by the court.