"Coercion" and Butler

[Dr. John C. Eastman]

"Lupu, Ira (Chip)" wrote, in part:

> Ignore for a moment the inconsistency of this holding with Butler's
> embrace of the Hamiltonian view of the spending power (spend for
> the "General Welfare') rather than the Madisonian view (spend only
> for objects enumerated in Art. I, sec. 8).

I am glad someone else has finally acknowledged the inconsistency of the
actual Butler holding with the claim earlier in the opinion that it was
adopting the Hamiltonian view of the spending power.  Doesn't that make the
Court's embrace of Hamilton at most dicta?  Or even require that we read the
Butler holding as tacitly endorsing the Madisonian view?  We then don't have
to fight about where to draw the abstract line between inducement and
coercion.
John Eastman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20010822/b5c578c0/attachment.htm