Resolved: The US founding fathers were Socialist

Note on spelling & grammar:Last round alone, my opponent made 22 spelling errors ("opponet," "defintion," "Procss," "costitution," etc) and an even greater number of grammar mistakes. That kind of sloppiness is distracting, and makes it difficult to comprehend his arguments. As spelling and grammar is one of the criteria by which this debate will be judged, I would like to remind my opponent that it would be in his self-interest to spellcheck his arguments before posting them in the future.RebuttalsMy opponent made almost as many mistakes about the U.S. Constitution as he did with the English language. Several corrections are in order:1. The Takings Clause clearly redistributes propertyTo minimize the socialist nature of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, my opponent claims that the redistribution of wealth requires the taking of property "without just compensation." This is pure semantics. If the government commandeers a private plot of land from a non-consenting owner and uses it for a public purpose (i.e., a public road accessible to everyone), how can my opponent plausibly argue that the government hasn't "redistributed" the owner's plot of land for the general public? As libtertarian author George Leef argues, eminent domain represents "a dangerous departure from libertarian principles; government should no more make anyone 'an offer he can’t refuse' than should criminals." [1] 2. "Property" isn’t a fundamental right protected under the Due Process ClauseAs evidenced by his citation to an online dictionary, my opponent has absolutely no understanding of what the 5th Amendment’s Due Process Clause actually mean.To begin with, many conservative jurists (like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia) subscribe to the notion that the Due Process Clause is merely a right to adequate legal process, rather than a right to retain other rights. [2] Even under a more expansive notion of “substantive due process,” however, the Due Process Clause only “provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.”[3] While the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized several “fundamental rights” under the Due Process Clause - including the right to marry [4] or the right to privacy [5] - the Supreme Court hasn’t recognized a fundamental “right to property” since the infamous and now-discredited Dred Scott decision, which equated black slaves to property. [6] To be clear, the Founding Fathers did not believe in an absolute right to private property. The 5th Amendment’s endorsement of coercive eminent domain is evidence of this, notwithstanding my opponent’s semantic hairsplitting over the definition of “redistribute.” As Founder Ben Franklin wrote: "All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.” [7] 3. The General Welfare Clause grants Congress a plenary spending power Through his silence, my opponent has tacitly agreed with my argument that government spending is a socialist tactic of reducing inequality through the redistribution of wealth. In the last round, however, my opponent clung to James Madison’s minority interpretation that the General Welfare clause merely references the other enumerated powers that follow it in Article 1, section 8, with the implication being that the Founding Fathers did not envision significant federal government spending. As I stated before, however, such a constrictive viewing of the General Welfare Clause was always a minority viewpoint among the Founding Fathers, and has never been accepted by a single Supreme Court Justice.My opponent tried to minimize Hamilton's role in advocating for an expansive reading of the General Welfare Clause, but this effort is hopeless. According to the Supreme Court, "Hamilton maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States." [8]4. The Founding Fathers supported aggressive government regulation through the Commerce ClauseI will concede that my opponent showed that my quote from Federalist Paper #26 merely referred to Hamilton's support of big government generally, rather than government intervention in the economy specifically. A better quote to support my point, however, comes from Hamilton's Report on Manufactures.In his Report, Hamilton addressed a libertarian criticism of his support for subsidies and trading tarriffs:"One [argument] turns on the proposition, that Industry, if left to itself, will naturally find its way to the most useful and profitable employment: whence it is inferred, that manufactures without the aid of government will grow up as soon and as fast, as the natural state of things and the interest of the community may require." [9]In response, Hamilton argued that a domestic economies without strong support from their governments are put at an inherent disadvantage in the global marketplace. Thus, Hamilton concluded, for domestic manufacturers to prosper, "it is evident, that the interference and aid of their own government are indispensable." [10]5. A majority of the Founding Fathers were Federalists with socialist tendencies In the last round, my opponent argued (without citation) that “Hamilton's Federalist Party was i (sic) the minority compared to Jefferson's Republican Party.” This is factually wrong, as historian Kenneth C. Martis showed that Hamiltonian Federalists dominated the First Congress over Jeffersonian Democrat / Republicans. [11]The Supreme Court has noted on several occasions that the actions of the First Congress are indicative of the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers, since so many Philadelphia delegates actually served in the First Congress. [12, 13] If this is true, then the First Congress' decision to adopt almost all of Hamilton's ambitious economic proposals are indicative that a majority of Hamilton's fellow Founding Fathers shared his socialism. To take just one example, the First Senate - half of whom attended the Constitutional Convention - approved Hamilton's proposed National Bank unanimously. [14]Due to character constraints, I must continue in Round 5. Sources:[1] http://www.thefreemanonline.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org......[3] Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-21 (1997)(emphasis added)[4] Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[5] Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)[6] Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)[7] http://www.marksquotes.com...[8] United States v. Butler, 267 U.S. 1, 65 (1937)[9] http://www.freerepublic.com...;[10] Id.[11] http://en.wikipedia.org...[12] Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816)(Justice Story)(recognizing that the First Congress was "composed . . . not only of men of great learning and ability, but of men who had acted principal part in framing, supporting, or opposing that constitution."[13] Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926)(noting that the First Congress "numbered among its leaders those who had been members of the Convention")[14] R.K. Moulton, Legislative and Documentary History of the Banks of the United States 13 (1834)