Did the Founders want a weak central government?

[ihopehefails]

If you answered "YES", the please explain why they did not keep the Articles of Confederation, which was a form of government with weak central authority and most of the real power still resting with the states.

Bullshit argument. The Articles of Confederation were superceded by the US Constitution which clearly states any powers not specified in the Constitution rest with the states.

Also, you will see that some of the actual text found in the articles of confederation were transcribed into the constitution.

 

[Meister]

Why should we care what the Founders wanted? They didn't care what the British monarchy wanted.

If you want to follow the founders' example, stop thinking that what guys wanted a couple centuries ago should dictate what you want now.

What the Founding Fathers wanted was us to be the most prolific nation in the history of the world, and it worked.
Seems now the left wants us to step down from that success, and get in line with mediocrity as the rest of the world.

Says who? Prolific? What does that even mean?

If the founders were alive today they'd be laughing their asses off at all the people who treat them like gods and their constitution like a Bible.

If you don't know the meaning of prolific...look it up, I'm not your seventh grade teacher.
If you don't believe it....your a friggin buffoon, NY. Because just about every other nation in the world will tell you different. Your partisan hackery is getting in the way of reality.

Nobody that I know thinks of the Founding Fathers as gods, sheesh.
I think of them as people with vision and knowledge on just how a government could go bad left to their own devices.
Your feeling about the Constitution is no more than drivel, and the Constitution does protect "the people" from a run away government.

Your words tell a lot about you, and just how you would embrace an overhaul of our government....it is pathetic.

 

[JBeukema]

Your feeling about the Constitution is no more than drivel, and the Constitution does protect "the people" from a run away government.

.

How are you going to demand they show you where the constitution gives them the authority?

Oh, pahleeeeese.....you know a person has lost the arguement when the "show me where the constitution grants...."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How is the government telling me how to live my life with the health care bill?

It's telling you that you are going to have healthcare one way or another.....a year ago it wasn't.....sheesh

Ok. I'm also going to have an interstate highway system one way or another - whether I like it or not, and I'm forced to pay for it with my tax dollars under penalty of law. Is that government controlling my life?

The difference is one is clearly in the Constitution (postal roads) and one isn't. If the feds want to control health care legitimately all they have to do is amend the Constitution, and let people decide for themselves. the fact that they prefer just to make things up as they go along should upset everyone, because sooner or later they are going to do something you don't like using the same logic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Everyone benefits from the highway system whether they realize it (or want to realize it) or not.

Really? Well as long as we're in the business of dictating to people what benefits them and what doesn't whether they like it or not, why not just say-

Everyone benefits from healthcare whether they realize it (or want to realize it) or not.

I doubt that the existence of the US ighway system is seen by anyone as a controlling factor in their life.

Tell that to the folks whose homes were bulldozed to make way for the highway.

They do?

How does a perfectly healthy person that never visits a doctor benefit from insurance?

 

[antagon]

no. 'the founders' - which i took to mean all of them, didn't agree on a weak federal government.

 

[MajinLink]

I think a lot did want more state power, but there were however there were a lot who wanted more federal power of course. You can only be incredibly stupid to think that all the founding father thought exactly alike.

 

[uscitizen]

"Of course they did, why else was one of their fist actions to rally more troops than for any revoloutionary war battle to enforce the new whiskey tax?
Led by George Washington.

 

[Sallow]

"Of course they did, why else was one of their fist actions to rally more troops than for any revoloutionary war battle to enforce the new whiskey tax?
Led by George Washington.

Another..big time..Federalist.

 

[Annie]

Many were torn about strong central government or not. Perhaps before Shay's Rebellion, the anti-Federalists may have won out, but not after.

Someone brought up the Whiskey Rebellion, which stands in stark contrast to Shay's, because the Federalists did win the battle of the papers.

Even then however, they argued that there were the limitations provided in the document to protect against the most egregious attempts to usurp lower government powers. While it may seem today they were wrong, always inherent in their arguments were a participating electorate, which for now it seems, we once again have.

 

[Sallow]

It's telling you that you are going to have healthcare one way or another.....a year ago it wasn't.....sheesh

Ok. I'm also going to have an interstate highway system one way or another - whether I like it or not, and I'm forced to pay for it with my tax dollars under penalty of law. Is that government controlling my life?

The difference is one is clearly in the Constitution (postal roads) and one isn't. If the feds want to control health care legitimately all they have to do is amend the Constitution, and let people decide for themselves. the fact that they prefer just to make things up as they go along should upset everyone, because sooner or later they are going to do something you don't like using the same logic.

Why?

General welfare and commerce clauses cover that pretty nicely.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A question which is truly ignorant of American history.

The Federalists (Adams, Hamilton, et al): No.

The Anti-federalists (Jefferson, Paine, etcetera): Yes.

Your answer shades history: Those who attended the Convention ~ 39 for a strong national government, 16 against.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There was a commentary on the Federalist papers where those in favor of ratifying the Constitutionas were called "Rat" and those against "Anti-rats"

Now, it's simply enough to stand here 230+ years later and see what a cluster fuck we've made for ourselves and say how wrong the Constitution was but the real problem is human nature.

The Founders did what they could to limit the power of the Federal government but if you give a man an inch, he'll force you to buy health care or pay a penalty and nationalize the auto companies, banks and have the federal government be the only entity making home mortgages.

The fault, Dear Publius, is that our frail constitution and inability to pay attention, allowed people to remake out Constitution and they've been at it for the whole history of the Republic.

Do you think we're unique? Study Rome, study Florence, study France, study Great Britain and watch the constant struggles for power.

We're no different than anywhere else. We had a good initial start, but it's up to US, to we here today to make it better. Adams and Jefferson can't help us, we've got to roll up our sleeves and make it what we want.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you answered "YES", the please explain why they did not keep the Articles of Confederation, which was a form of government with weak central authority and most of the real power still resting with the states.

Bullshit argument. The Articles of Confederation were superceded by the US Constitution which clearly states any powers not specified in the Constitution rest with the states.

Also, you will see that some of the actual text found in the articles of confederation were transcribed into the constitution.

And you both ignore the relationship of that with the general welfare clause. You gotta way to go, guys.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What the Founding Fathers wanted was us to be the most prolific nation in the history of the world, and it worked.
Seems now the left wants us to step down from that success, and get in line with mediocrity as the rest of the world.

Says who? Prolific? What does that even mean?

If the founders were alive today they'd be laughing their asses off at all the people who treat them like gods and their constitution like a Bible.

If you don't know the meaning of prolific...look it up, I'm not your seventh grade teacher.
If you don't believe it....your a friggin buffoon, NY. Because just about every other nation in the world will tell you different. Your partisan hackery is getting in the way of reality.

Nobody that I know thinks of the Founding Fathers as gods, sheesh.
I think of them as people with vision and knowledge on just how a government could go bad left to their own devices.
Your feeling about the Constitution is no more than drivel, and the Constitution does protect "the people" from a run away government.

Your words tell a lot about you, and just how you would embrace an overhaul of our government....it is pathetic.

Meister, your understanding is not at the adult level, as your opining above demonstrates, and you certainly do belong in a 7th-grade class. OK, I can insult better than you, so what?

The fact is that the Founders were an interesting group, had some decent vision, lacked in other areas, and be utterly confounded a non-white was president of the United States.

They could not envision the future; therefore, the Constitution is organic, not rigid, to be intepreted for each era and generation; thus the argument for "originalism" is constructed on a bed of rhetorical sand that washed away long ago.

Move on. Better yet, take a history course.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's telling you that you are going to have healthcare one way or another.....a year ago it wasn't.....sheesh

Ok. I'm also going to have an interstate highway system one way or another - whether I like it or not, and I'm forced to pay for it with my tax dollars under penalty of law. Is that government controlling my life?

The difference is one is clearly in the Constitution (postal roads) and one isn't. If the feds want to control health care legitimately all they have to do is amend the Constitution, and let people decide for themselves. the fact that they prefer just to make things up as they go along should upset everyone, because sooner or later they are going to do something you don't like using the same logic.

The difference is the general welfare clause, which covers any argument that you have, QWB. The "people" decided when they elected Senators and Representatives in 2008.

And? No state attorney general has filed any brief of any significant constitutional concern about the constitutionality of health care.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Says who? Prolific? What does that even mean?

If the founders were alive today they'd be laughing their asses off at all the people who treat them like gods and their constitution like a Bible.

If you don't know the meaning of prolific...look it up, I'm not your seventh grade teacher.
If you don't believe it....your a friggin buffoon, NY. Because just about every other nation in the world will tell you different. Your partisan hackery is getting in the way of reality.

Nobody that I know thinks of the Founding Fathers as gods, sheesh.
I think of them as people with vision and knowledge on just how a government could go bad left to their own devices.
Your feeling about the Constitution is no more than drivel, and the Constitution does protect "the people" from a run away government.

Your words tell a lot about you, and just how you would embrace an overhaul of our government....it is pathetic.

Meister, your understanding is not at the adult level, as your opining above demonstrates, and you certainly do belong in a 7th-grade class. OK, I can insult better than you, so what?

The fact is that the Founders were an interesting group, had some decent vision, lacked in other areas, and be utterly confounded a non-white was president of the United States.

They could not envision the future; therefore, the Constitution is organic, not rigid, to be intepreted for each era and generation; thus the argument for "originalism" is constructed on a bed of rhetorical sand that washed away long ago.

Move on. Better yet, take a history course.

Jake, are you talking about the US Constitution? I'm not sure what document you're referring to with this " the Constitution is organic, not rigid, to be intepreted (sic) for each era and generation"

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fault, dear Crusader Frank, is you still want the right to own a human being, which you could have done before the Civil War. I don't think you want a human, but I believe you want that misbegotten "rat" (that's how we say 'rights' down here).

The Constitution has been self-correcting from the beginning, through Amendments and SCOTUS decisions. Today Plessy and Worchester and Dred Scott are not likely. In your world, they would be expected to happen.

Where you are right is that Americans as humans are simply the same as other humans: American exceptionalism does not apply. Where are we are different is when we live up to the liberal humanity of the Declaration and Constitutuion. When we had done that, we are pretty awesome.

 

[Annie]

There was a commentary on the Federalist papers where those in favor of ratifying the Constitutionas were called "Rat" and those against "Anti-rats"

Now, it's simply enough to stand here 230+ years later and see what a cluster fuck we've made for ourselves and say how wrong the Constitution was but the real problem is human nature.

The Founders did what they could to limit the power of the Federal government but if you give a man an inch, he'll force you to buy health care or pay a penalty and nationalize the auto companies, banks and have the federal government be the only entity making home mortgages.

The fault, Dear Publius, is that our frail constitution and inability to pay attention, allowed people to remake out Constitution and they've been at it for the whole history of the Republic.

Do you think we're unique? Study Rome, study Florence, study France, study Great Britain and watch the constant struggles for power.

We're no different than anywhere else. We had a good initial start, but it's up to US, to we here today to make it better. Adams and Jefferson can't help us, we've got to roll up our sleeves and make it what we want.

You got it right CF, though the 'rats' and 'anti-rats' were not referring to the rat that Paine thought he'd smelt.

The Federalists were in favor of ratification, the anti-Federalists against. The Federalists were in favor of the two 'general language' clauses, the anti-Federalists against those two and wanted specific language and a Bill of Rights added. When all was said and done, they even compromised here, with the general clauses and Bill of Rights kept in or agreed to be added. The respect they had for each other, no matter how tempers had flared is in the assumption that the Bill of Rights would be added with that first Congress and the fact that those 10 amendments were added first thing accomplished.

I think when one looks at those first 'Revolutionary Era Presidencies' there were plenty of instances that all of them met moments of irony within their administrations on the wisdom of 'the other side', regardless of their personal stand during the Convention and Ratification periods. We know that Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase stands out, but certainly was not the only issue faced in those first decades.

They all wanted a 'more perfect union', though they knew that the interests or factions if you will, they represented wanted different outcomes for different reasons, they respected that ultimately the union was most important to all of them. Near all assumed the others were of good faith, which is why they ultimately 'got it done.' The rest had to be left up to the succeeding generations, to keep it up and remind the 'other side' of the ultimate public good was the interest of all, regardless of the particular area of disagreement. For these reasons, even Adams and Jefferson ultimately were able to resume their friendship in their ending years, regardless of the philosophical differences of their administrations.

The Constitution and the system it created IS exceptional and left us the possibility that so can be the people, IF they, the ultimate source of power, stay informed and active, it's they that keep the ultimate checks and balances on those running the government. The people are to whom Jefferson is referring to in the 'from time-to-time' meme. There are times in our brief history where this has been shown to be true, I believe that we are living through such a period. So far, the people are doing pretty well, both sides are actively engaged. Now if they can learn to think for the 'whole' instead of just their own interests.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The fault, dear Crusader Frank, is you still want the right to own a human being, which you could have done before the Civil War. I don't think you want a human, but I believe you want that misbegotten "rat" (that's how we say 'rights' down here).

The Constitution has been self-correcting from the beginning, through Amendments and SCOTUS decisions. Today Plessy and Worchester and Dred Scott are not likely. In your world, they would be expected to happen.

Where you are right is that Americans as humans are simply the same as other humans: American exceptionalism does not apply. Where are we are different is when we live up to the liberal humanity of the Declaration and Constitutuion. When we had done that, we are pretty awesome.

Jake, it's hard to tell what's more idiotic: your imaging me as a would be slave owner or your complete and total, well I can't even call it a misunderstanding, because it's a type of understanding, it's more like we're talking about another document in some foreign language.

The Constitution is not a "Living, breathing document" but it does have an Amendment process; that was the genius of the founders. The "Living, Breathing" is just a Progressive perversion.