Did the Founders want a LIMITED Federal Government?

[CrusaderFrank]

Everyone know the Founders wanted government run health care, I mean isn't is obvious?

Hell they wanted all individual sweat equity to be Government's to do as they pleased. All money, wealth belonged to Government.

I KNOW it's in there somewhere...oh! That's right! That was written in the Constitution to happen when Society went into the toilet where we presently are now.

Ask any Statist on this board. They'll tell you so.

90% tax rate on personal income too, amiright?

 

[Yurt]

What did the founding fathers know about what was required to run a 21st century economic and military superpower with over 300 million people?

They intentionaly left the Constitution vague to allow future generations to evolve the government as we expanded

Through Consent, Amendment, and Due Process, Dick Weed.

The great majority of the Founders approved of judicial review. Nine of the states had the doctrine in their state constitutions in 1787. What John Marshal et al pulled off 16 years later was nothing new on the American landscape. So, yes, Consent, Amendment, Due Process, and Judicial Review.

you do realize you just shot yourself in the foot....it doesn't matter if 1 state had it....or all states had it....what mattered was transferring that judicial power to the UNITED STATES supreme court, not the state courts

that power was not expressly given the cotus....while i support it, your argument is in err

 

[The T]

Everyone know the Founders wanted government run health care, I mean isn't is obvious?

Hell they wanted all individual sweat equity to be Government's to do as they pleased. All money, wealth belonged to Government.

I KNOW it's in there somewhere...oh! That's right! That was written in the Constitution to happen when Society went into the toilet where we presently are now.

Ask any Statist on this board. They'll tell you so.

90% tax rate on personal income too, amiright?

More like 250% with the Generational Theft Clause.

 

[Agit8r]

One branch of our founders wanted all government to be limited. The purpose of the federal government being to maintain commercial amity and common defense of the homeland.

The other branch of the founders favored governments at every level to issue bounties and emoluments, and protect property in perpetuity, and to charter self-governing corporations to rule over the people

 

[Bullfighter]

Did the Founders want a LIMITED Federal Government?

Yes! Limited to white people.

​

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What did the founding fathers know about what was required to run a 21st century economic and military superpower with over 300 million people?

They intentionaly left the Constitution vague to allow future generations to evolve the government as we expanded

BY AMENDMENT. Not by fiat.

 

[Intense]

What did the founding fathers know about what was required to run a 21st century economic and military superpower with over 300 million people?

They intentionaly left the Constitution vague to allow future generations to evolve the government as we expanded

Through Consent, Amendment, and Due Process, Dick Weed.

The great majority of the Founders approved of judicial review. Nine of the states had the doctrine in their state constitutions in 1787. What John Marshal et al pulled off 16 years later was nothing new on the American landscape. So, yes, Consent, Amendment, Due Process, and Judicial Review.

There is Judicial Review based on reason and logic. There is Judicial Review based on Imagination. We were not an Oligarchy by design. The three coequal Branches should not be abandoned along with checks and balances and accountability because of a constructive Law or concept who's correct path is through the Legislature. This practice is a usurpation and an abuse to due process.

 

[rightwinger]

What did the founding fathers know about what was required to run a 21st century economic and military superpower with over 300 million people?

They intentionaly left the Constitution vague to allow future generations to evolve the government as we expanded

BY AMENDMENT. Not by fiat.

What do I care about an Italian car?

No, not by an Amendment

We can not got through a lengthy amendment process every time we need an interpretation of the Constitution. That is why we have courts

 

[editec]

The Constitution is a document designed to limit the powers of government; not to encourage is growth.

If that were entirely true, they wouldn't have bothers because they already had a central government with powers so limited that it was ineffective.

Honest to god, have you guys every actually read any history?

Here's an early Christmas present from editec, kids.

It's a sticking stuffer freaking clue....the talking heads are lying to you!

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution is a document designed to limit the powers of government; not to encourage is growth.

If that were entirely true, they wouldn't have bothers because they already had a central government with powers so limited that it was ineffective.

Honest to god, have you guys every actually read any history?

Here's an early Christmas present from editec, kids.

It's a sticking stuffer freaking clue....the talking heads are lying to you!

Do you mean Glenn Beck is lying about the founding fathers?

 

[Intense]

What did the founding fathers know about what was required to run a 21st century economic and military superpower with over 300 million people?

They intentionaly left the Constitution vague to allow future generations to evolve the government as we expanded

BY AMENDMENT. Not by fiat.

What do I care about an Italian car?

No, not by an Amendment

We can not got through a lengthy amendment process every time we need an interpretation of the Constitution. That is why we have courts

You miss the point. Part of the Role of the Court is to clarify, this is not being objected to. The Court acting above It's authority in construction of new law is. Where are the checks and balances??? Where is the Appeal or Remedy over Supreme Court Tyranny??? How do you rectify a gross wrong or injustice perpetuated by the Supreme Court???? To whom is the Court accountable??? The Legislature is Accountable. The Executive is accountable? To whom or what is the Supreme Court accountable? This is not original Design. Hamilton argued in the Federalist Paper's that the Court was the weakest Arm of the Federal Government. He reversed his position after Ratification.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Through Consent, Amendment, and Due Process, Dick Weed.

The great majority of the Founders approved of judicial review. Nine of the states had the doctrine in their state constitutions in 1787. What John Marshal et al pulled off 16 years later was nothing new on the American landscape. So, yes, Consent, Amendment, Due Process, and Judicial Review.

There is Judicial Review based on reason and logic. There is Judicial Review based on Imagination. We were not an Oligarchy by design. The three coequal Branches should not be abandoned along with checks and balances and accountability because of a constructive Law or concept who's correct path is through the Legislature. This practice is a usurpation and an abuse to due process.

According to a very small, insignificant, and powerless group of dissenters.

 

[Intense]

The great majority of the Founders approved of judicial review. Nine of the states had the doctrine in their state constitutions in 1787. What John Marshal et al pulled off 16 years later was nothing new on the American landscape. So, yes, Consent, Amendment, Due Process, and Judicial Review.

There is Judicial Review based on reason and logic. There is Judicial Review based on Imagination. We were not an Oligarchy by design. The three coequal Branches should not be abandoned along with checks and balances and accountability because of a constructive Law or concept who's correct path is through the Legislature. This practice is a usurpation and an abuse to due process.

According to a very small, insignificant, and powerless group of dissenters.

Not true at all Jake. Right and Wrong are based on Principle, not how many People you get to agree with you. Inalienable Right's come from God, and are Recognized by Man and Government, at least some of the time, when personal prejudice or interest aren't in the way. You realize that you are arguing that the Court has no limit, no one to answer to. That is exactly what Jefferson warned us about. That is not original design Jake.

 

[Intense]

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

The Federalist #78

No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.

Too bad this is not also applied to Judicial Acts.

 

[Agit8r]

What did the founding fathers know about what was required to run a 21st century economic and military superpower with over 300 million people?

They intentionaly left the Constitution vague to allow future generations to evolve the government as we expanded

Those proponents of limited government did not believe that a standing army should be kept during peacetime. Also, they believed that perpetual war was deleterious to liberty. As far as their knowledge of a superpower government, they had only to look to the British Empire as a negative example

 

[Common Sense]

What did the founding fathers know about what was required to run a 21st century economic and military superpower with over 300 million people?

They intentionaly left the Constitution vague to allow future generations to evolve the government as we expanded

Those proponents of limited government did not believe that a standing army should be kept during peacetime. Also, they believed that perpetual war was deleterious to liberty. As far as their knowledge of a superpower government, they had only to look to the British Empire as a negative example

i think its interesting that no one here has even mentioned the civil war. most people believe that the civil war was simply fought over slavery. but it was also fought over the states wanting more power than the federal government.

the southern states wanted most of the powers of government to rest with the states, while the northern states were in support of a strong central government. this is also at the core of this debate. by the north winning this war, it enshrined the idea of a strong federal government as the back bone of our country. there are many arguments as to why this is needed.

you can look at modern europe and the european union as good example of this. since we are a collection of states that fall under the flag of one nation, there is the argument of the need to have broad overall encompassing laws that govern the whole. things like free trade & interstate commerce, interstate travel, general rights and portability all go into this core argument. these are all things that we take for granted but in europe prior to 1993, traveling between countries and doing business was much more difficult because at the time each individual country had it own trade laws and regulations. this restricted the flow of people, goods and services. when the EU came to power, it simply did what the US had done before and made trade and travel much easier. thus helping to improve the economy of all if its members.

now the genius that is the US consitution, left one perfect answer to every problem. that is that the constitution can be changed at any point and time by the people. now if "the people" want to limit the scope of government then we are allowed to do so. this though would required an amendment to be written and ratified by the states. should this be done? i will not speak for the whole but I can see some positives as well as negatives in limiting the scope of the federal government. maybe that should be a new thread.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is Judicial Review based on reason and logic. There is Judicial Review based on Imagination. We were not an Oligarchy by design. The three coequal Branches should not be abandoned along with checks and balances and accountability because of a constructive Law or concept who's correct path is through the Legislature. This practice is a usurpation and an abuse to due process.

According to a very small, insignificant, and powerless group of dissenters.

Not true at all Jake. Right and Wrong are based on Principle, not how many People you get to agree with you. Inalienable Right's come from God, and are Recognized by Man and Government, at least some of the time, when personal prejudice or interest aren't in the way. You realize that you are arguing that the Court has no limit, no one to answer to. That is exactly what Jefferson warned us about. That is not original design Jake.

The Court assumed that power inherent in the Constitution for it, Intense. Nothing else could have happened. We are not going back, Intense, to the days of the Founders.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What did the founding fathers know about what was required to run a 21st century economic and military superpower with over 300 million people?

They intentionaly left the Constitution vague to allow future generations to evolve the government as we expanded

Those proponents of limited government did not believe that a standing army should be kept during peacetime. Also, they believed that perpetual war was deleterious to liberty. As far as their knowledge of a superpower government, they had only to look to the British Empire as a negative example

i think its interesting that no one here has even mentioned the civil war. most people believe that the civil war was simply fought over slavery. but it was also fought over the states wanting more power than the federal government.

the southern states wanted most of the powers of government to rest with the states, while the northern states were in support of a strong central government. this is also at the core of this debate. by the north winning this war, it enshrined the idea of a strong federal government as the back bone of our country. there are many arguments as to why this is needed.

you can look at modern europe and the european union as good example of this. since we are a collection of states that fall under the flag of one nation, there is the argument of the need to have broad overall encompassing laws that govern the whole. things like free trade & interstate commerce, interstate travel, general rights and portability all go into this core argument. these are all things that we take for granted but in europe prior to 1993, traveling between countries and doing business was much more difficult because at the time each individual country had it own trade laws and regulations. this restricted the flow of people, goods and services. when the EU came to power, it simply did what the US had done before and made trade and travel much easier. thus helping to improve the economy of all if its members.

now the genius that is the US consitution, left one perfect answer to every problem. that is that the constitution can be changed at any point and time by the people. now if "the people" want to limit the scope of government then we are allowed to do so. this though would required an amendment to be written and ratified by the states. should this be done? i will not speak for the whole but I can see some positives as well as negatives in limiting the scope of the federal government. maybe that should be a new thread.

You have done it now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Kevin Kennedy Alert, Kevin Kennedy Alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Those proponents of limited government did not believe that a standing army should be kept during peacetime. Also, they believed that perpetual war was deleterious to liberty. As far as their knowledge of a superpower government, they had only to look to the British Empire as a negative example

i think its interesting that no one here has even mentioned the civil war. most people believe that the civil war was simply fought over slavery. but it was also fought over the states wanting more power than the federal government.

the southern states wanted most of the powers of government to rest with the states, while the northern states were in support of a strong central government. this is also at the core of this debate. by the north winning this war, it enshrined the idea of a strong federal government as the back bone of our country. there are many arguments as to why this is needed.

you can look at modern europe and the european union as good example of this. since we are a collection of states that fall under the flag of one nation, there is the argument of the need to have broad overall encompassing laws that govern the whole. things like free trade & interstate commerce, interstate travel, general rights and portability all go into this core argument. these are all things that we take for granted but in europe prior to 1993, traveling between countries and doing business was much more difficult because at the time each individual country had it own trade laws and regulations. this restricted the flow of people, goods and services. when the EU came to power, it simply did what the US had done before and made trade and travel much easier. thus helping to improve the economy of all if its members.

now the genius that is the US consitution, left one perfect answer to every problem. that is that the constitution can be changed at any point and time by the people. now if "the people" want to limit the scope of government then we are allowed to do so. this though would required an amendment to be written and ratified by the states. should this be done? i will not speak for the whole but I can see some positives as well as negatives in limiting the scope of the federal government. maybe that should be a new thread.

You have done it now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Kevin Kennedy Alert, Kevin Kennedy Alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you for that wonderful introduction, but I'll have to check this out later.

 

[Vanquish]

Why would the FF's give the executive branch the power to create agencies if they didn't want him/her to actually do it?

That's expanding government people.

This whole mantra of small government is a) partially right but b) a knee-jerk reaction to governmental waste. We GET IT! Waste is bad. No one wants waste.