The FP are a primary source for interpretation of the constitution. It helped pushed the ratification process, and it outlined the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government. You can't fully understand the constitution without reading the federalist papers.Regarding the Federalist Papers: so what? The last time I looked the FP were very interesting historical writings that explained the thoughts of a few people who were part of the much larger group of Founding Fathers.
As in, America is #1 and **** the rest of the world? That sort of economic nationalism served as the backbone of mercantilism and imperialism. Why not step into the 21st century of liberalized trade and global cooperation?The tariff: I also strongly suspect that the parts of the economy you are most strongly concerned about and the parts of the economy that I am most concerned about are not at all the same. I also suspect based on your closing reference to the global economy that we would be miles apart on that issue also.
Yes you are, just like the bastards who felt the same way legislated the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 which further exacerbated global trade and led to a deeper depression.I would have a tariff and it would work like this: any company that moves American jobs overseas is now free to sell those products anywhere overseas they want to sell them. I use "overseas" in the broadest sense and would include Mexico and other nations not really overseas at all. If those same products want ot be sold here, then we would have a tariff. I happen to love this country and the American people. I agree with Ross Perot when he predicted the 'giant sucking sound' of good paying manufacturing jobs leaving America if NAFTA were passed. I happen to reside in an area of the country which has been decimated by the economic treason of large corporations. Sorry if I do not welcome their foreign made products back on the shelves of Wal Mart. But I am inclined that way.
I said a bare minimum of regulations, which could be deemed necessary and constitutional given the elasticity clause. However, regulating the freedom of businesses to trade, associate, set prices, and form licensing agreements are not covered under the elasticity clause. You can't just use the elasticity clause to justify any and all expansion of government power. If it has nothing to do with the constitutional powers, or specifically the protection of the Bill of Rights, the elasticity clause is irrelevant.My reference to the elastic clause was in part response to your offer to drop economic regulation.