Our founding fathers were not conservative

That's a summary of the whole of his writings.

Here's just one example
Hamilton:
This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended. - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.- Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures 5 Dec. 1791

On the contrary -- it is perfectly posible to specify every power you wish a government to have.

-I- didn't mention -any- particular party
Your response, however, certainly denotes an agreement w/ the principle of what I said.

Thus, Hamilton, who was self-contradicting and self-serving. is not a valid source for determining the intent or meaning of the variouts passages on the Constitution.

__________________
The dumbest statement ever made:

[quote=M14 Shooter;3102507]Wait, weren't you the one arguing that they sometimes contradicted themselves? Now you are saying that each and every word was sacrosanct. Could you make up your mind?

BTW: Who won the debates?

Yes and it was also argued that the federal government was too strong and that it would encroach on state powers. Lots of arguments but you know what, it's only what got written down, signed and ratified that counts.

Nope, that is the point. when we are talking about what happened in Massachusetts we are talking about something that occurred contemporaneously. Not two people discussing events more than 200 hundred years later.

Absolutely wrong. Many people, including yourself, tend to confuse the principles in the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. Granted there are some strong similarities but there are also some strong disparities. Failure to account for those differences leads to errors in analysis.

There were very good reasons for abandoning the Articles of Confederation after only eight years and for the refusal to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. To assume that neither action was "necessary" because something was "implied" just doesn't cut the muster...

__________________
I'm Proud I Never Voted For Bush Jr!

[quote=Affrayer;3102542]You aren't paying attention. Let me know when you can/do.

No.. the point is that the Fathers fought to preserve the rights they previously had, making them, by the definition provides, conservatives.

__________________
The dumbest statement ever made:

Should I take your non-responsive answer as your capitulation?

Nope, as I pointed out before, those that framed the Constitution were not concerned with "preserving" individual rights. Just as I will point out that it is conservatives who are most likely to trample individual rights. See Bush Jr and warrantless searches.

__________________
I'm Proud I Never Voted For Bush Jr!

Bullshit.

The Constitution is a Libertarian document.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Patrick Henry

Does he sound like a "conservative"? He definitely was not a lily pad liberal!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

__________________


The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Joseph Story
Supreme Court Justice

He sounds very much like a conservative and in no way like a liberal.

,

__________________
The very existence of Ravi is an argument in favor of burkas. Oh, and Zona is a liar. What a shock.

For liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, from John Scalzi. I Hate Your Politics Whatever

Even if it was true that "conservatism" was a philosophy it was destroyed by Roosevelt in 1935.

FDR created a massive welfare/warfare state which the "conservatives" - beginning with Eisenhower - did not try to dismantle . Their philosophies have merged to such extent that the only way I can differentiate Bush from Obama is by their color.

.

__________________


The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Joseph Story
Supreme Court Justice

And as you, myself, and others pointed out? Modern Conservatives hold in high reverence the mastery of what the Founders gave us, and the want of those of us whom truly understand American Exceptionalism as opposed to the destructive path we are on now wanting to keep any semblence of what they gave us.

Modern Conservative are indeed Classic Liberals when the stakes are Liberty interspersed with Law and Order as handed to us not so long ago.

__________________

There is a difference between Republicans and Conservatives.

None of you guys get it.

Let's illustrate my contention. Here's a scenario:

Let's say you're on a train heading to work. In a nearby seat two other commuters are engaged in a genuine conversation about political philosophy. You don't want to be an eavesdropper, but they're speaking in normal conversational tones and volume and you can't help but hear them. Plus, you find that it's an interesting conversation.

Here's the Set-Up:

First commuter says to second commuter, "Well, personally, as for my political beliefs, I believe that our government enacts way too much legislation, taxes us way too much, engages in far too many 'programs' and spends far too much money. In a properly run government, their ability to behave in that fashion should be carefully constrained. Yes. I believe in limiting the power of government within bounds that we set for them."

Now, here's the question:

Is First Commuter, the above speaker, a conservative or a liberal?

__________________
The very existence of Ravi is an argument in favor of burkas. Oh, and Zona is a liar. What a shock.

That's the "talk" but we've all seen the truth of their "walk" and it's in the opposite direction.

They talk smaller government but they walk government expansion.

They talk fiscal responsibility but they walk gross fiscal irresponsibility.

They talk peace but they walk unnecessary war.

They talk border security but they walk open borders.

On and on, the walk is the opposite of the talk!

__________________
I'm Proud I Never Voted For Bush Jr!

Who is this "they" you speak of?

__________________
The very existence of Ravi is an argument in favor of burkas. Oh, and Zona is a liar. What a shock.

I find it a bit absurd to view the constituional compromise as the be all and end all of what originalism was all about. Though it can be said to set bounds for the FEDERAL government, it is by no means a complete picture of what American government was all about. When we read the state (or more especially the commonwealth) constitutions, we see a fuller set of metes and bounds that government in general was supposed to be based on. Take for instance the 1776 Constitution of Virginia which includes this description:

"That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."

Similarily, from the 1776 Constitution of Pennsylvania:

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community; and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family, or soft of men, who are a part only of that community, And that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish government in such manner as shall be by that community judged most conducive to the public weal.

...and the 1780 Constitution of Massachusetts:

"Government is instituted for the common good, for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people, and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government, and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."

Now THAT's American!

He sounds just like Bush Jr...but I got to ask, who cares about the talk? I want to know the "walk."

__________________
I'm Proud I Never Voted For Bush Jr!

The people who talk the talk...

__________________
I'm Proud I Never Voted For Bush Jr!