Did the Founders want a weak central government?

[antagon]

The system they tried was Federalism, you Jack Ass.

clearly the man is referring to the articles of confederacy experiment.

Our form of Federalism is what he referred to. Federalism is anti Strong Centralized Authority, plain and simple. Totalitarianism, is the threat, Tyranny. The defense, Enumerated Co-Equal distribution of Powers, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Federal, State, and Local. Each with It's sphere of influence and authority. Checks and balances. Centralized one size fits all is the last thing we need. It is the Tyrant's Perfect Storm. Clearly the man is implying that State's Right's died with the Confederacy.

maybe i cant say what editec was referring to with the clarity ive claimed. i know that it would require being desperately uninformed about america to fail to understand the extents of state rights despite the civil war. i dont think ed is in that basket. it sounds like a reference to the articles of confederation to me.

i think federalism is just what it has turned out to be, but it is not the confederate, 'anti-strong' claim that you've made. the federal government is explicitly declared supreme in the constitution in a way that is simpler and plainer than the extents of the enumerated powers of congress. within the sphere of government, the federal government holds significant power.

i believe the qualm of the founders was with the power of government visa vis the constituency as far as consensus went. even though not everyone thought that an explicit bill of rights was necessary, it was understood that the government was not meant to involve itself deeply in people's lives in the ways dear enough to make that bill of rights in the end.

the idea that confederacy or any other face of state supremacy was agreed among those who abandoned the articles in favor of a federal system with explicit supremacy to that centralized government is a logical indication that your perspective was not the prevailing one at the time, or at any time thereafter.

 

[Intense]

clearly the man is referring to the articles of confederacy experiment.

Our form of Federalism is what he referred to. Federalism is anti Strong Centralized Authority, plain and simple. Totalitarianism, is the threat, Tyranny. The defense, Enumerated Co-Equal distribution of Powers, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Federal, State, and Local. Each with It's sphere of influence and authority. Checks and balances. Centralized one size fits all is the last thing we need. It is the Tyrant's Perfect Storm. Clearly the man is implying that State's Right's died with the Confederacy.

maybe i cant say what editec was referring to with the clarity ive claimed. i know that it would require being desperately uninformed about america to fail to understand the extents of state rights despite the civil war. i dont think ed is in that basket. it sounds like a reference to the articles of confederation to me.

i think federalism is just what it has turned out to be, but it is not the confederate, 'anti-strong' claim that you've made. the federal government is explicitly declared supreme in the constitution in a way that is simpler and plainer than the extents of the enumerated powers of congress. within the sphere of government, the federal government holds significant power.

i believe the qualm of the founders was with the power of government visa vis the constituency as far as consensus went. even though not everyone thought that an explicit bill of rights was necessary, it was understood that the government was not meant to involve itself deeply in people's lives in the ways dear enough to make that bill of rights in the end.

the idea that confederacy or any other face of state supremacy was agreed among those who abandoned the articles in favor of a federal system with explicit supremacy to that centralized government is a logical indication that your perspective was not the prevailing one at the time, or at any time thereafter.

i think federalism is just what it has turned out to be, but it is not the confederate, 'anti-strong' claim that you've made.

My claim has nothing to do with with the Confederacy or Anti-Strong. My claim is about Government by the consent of the Governed, Rule of Law, and Due Process. Our Federal Republic is Anti-Tyranny. Transparency, Disclosure, Accountability, are part of the formula. Yes, I agree with You that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. We really are not that far apart. I do believe in the Enumerated Powers the Constitution plainly laid out. These Powers reserve certain Jurisdictions to the States or the People.

it was understood that the government was not meant to involve itself deeply in people's lives in the ways dear enough to make that bill of rights in the end.

And yet the Writers of the Constitution Originally tried to ratify it without The Bill Of Rights, because the argument was, the Powers were so limited, that it was redundant. Only because of the distrust at the Constitutional Convention, was it added only to get support for Ratification. Pity that the Right to Privacy was not thought of at the time, huh.

the idea that confederacy or any other face of state supremacy was agreed among those who abandoned the articles in favor of a federal system with explicit supremacy to that centralized government is a logical indication that your perspective was not the prevailing one at the time, or at any time thereafter.

I think you are confusing Federalism with Nationalism. Federalism was not about one size fits all Nationalized Generic Solutions to our Problems, it is about a loose hold, allowing for experimentation and discovery at Local levels, and about expansion of proved policies. Think on the effect of recall on mass distribution of anything, because of failed or incompetent testing? The object of Good Government, is serving the needs of it's charge, not the means by which it serves it's charge. The mechanism and it's concerns are secondary to the mechanism's reason for being in the first place.

You make good points, Antagon. We are not that far apart.

 

[antagon]

no, i dont think we are too far apart, Intense. this is the same sort of debate which the framers and the ratifiers engaged in. the constitution seems to have a wide enough birth to allow for both of our points of view to find support within its text.

i am under the impression that this was done with the intent for lawmakers to hack it out. failing that, i dont think the founders were averse to armed civil disobedience to tyrrany... it came down to civil war in the end.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And you should remember that the devils knew Jesus and trembled in fear.

Frank has very little comprehension of the matters he discusses.

Jake, you're a clown. Big red nose, oversize shoes, fuzzy magenta hair, the whole works.

You embarrassed yourself in the "Blacklisted" Thread and now you've doubled down on your "Total Ignorance is indeed a defense" strategy.

The Founders did not draft document that gave us a spineless, formless government subject to every changing whims. They installed a high threshold to Amendment the document. Progressives breached the threshold to pass the New Deal and have been wiping their asses with it ever since.

And again you've not told us what fundamental changes everybody having a iPod would necessitate to the Constitution.

Jake the Clown.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Frank, I have unmasked the clown in you. I kicked your ass in the "blacklisted" thread. The Founders drafted a document that gave a strong, central government so that business, banking, and commerce could expand. You ignore Madison initially, you ignore Hamilton, you ignore Washington, you ignore John Adams and his son, you ignore Henry Clay and Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln.

You, Frank, are the one wearing the clown suit here.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, I have unmasked the clown in you. I kicked your ass in the "blacklisted" thread. The Founders drafted a document that gave a strong, central government so that business, banking, and commerce could expand. You ignore Madison initially, you ignore Hamilton, you ignore Washington, you ignore John Adams and his son, you ignore Henry Clay and Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln.

You, Frank, are the one wearing the clown suit here.

Here's Jake taking another swing at me in a debate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Taking a swing at you? You swung at me, missed, and I knocked you to floor. Clown.

 

[Intense]

Our form of Federalism is what he referred to. Federalism is anti Strong Centralized Authority, plain and simple. Totalitarianism, is the threat, Tyranny. The defense, Enumerated Co-Equal distribution of Powers, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Federal, State, and Local. Each with It's sphere of influence and authority. Checks and balances. Centralized one size fits all is the last thing we need. It is the Tyrant's Perfect Storm. Clearly the man is implying that State's Right's died with the Confederacy.

maybe i cant say what editec was referring to with the clarity ive claimed. i know that it would require being desperately uninformed about america to fail to understand the extents of state rights despite the civil war. i dont think ed is in that basket. it sounds like a reference to the articles of confederation to me.

i think federalism is just what it has turned out to be, but it is not the confederate, 'anti-strong' claim that you've made. the federal government is explicitly declared supreme in the constitution in a way that is simpler and plainer than the extents of the enumerated powers of congress. within the sphere of government, the federal government holds significant power.

i believe the qualm of the founders was with the power of government visa vis the constituency as far as consensus went. even though not everyone thought that an explicit bill of rights was necessary, it was understood that the government was not meant to involve itself deeply in people's lives in the ways dear enough to make that bill of rights in the end.

the idea that confederacy or any other face of state supremacy was agreed among those who abandoned the articles in favor of a federal system with explicit supremacy to that centralized government is a logical indication that your perspective was not the prevailing one at the time, or at any time thereafter.

My claim has nothing to do with with the Confederacy or Anti-Strong. My claim is about Government by the consent of the Governed, Rule of Law, and Due Process. Our Federal Republic is Anti-Tyranny. Transparency, Disclosure, Accountability, are part of the formula. Yes, I agree with You that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. We really are not that far apart. I do believe in the Enumerated Powers the Constitution plainly laid out. These Powers reserve certain Jurisdictions to the States or the People.

it was understood that the government was not meant to involve itself deeply in people's lives in the ways dear enough to make that bill of rights in the end.

And yet the Writers of the Constitution Originally tried to ratify it without The Bill Of Rights, because the argument was, the Powers were so limited, that it was redundant. Only because of the distrust at the Constitutional Convention, was it added only to get support for Ratification. Pity that the Right to Privacy was not thought of at the time, huh.

the idea that confederacy or any other face of state supremacy was agreed among those who abandoned the articles in favor of a federal system with explicit supremacy to that centralized government is a logical indication that your perspective was not the prevailing one at the time, or at any time thereafter.

I think you are confusing Federalism with Nationalism. Federalism was not about one size fits all Nationalized Generic Solutions to our Problems, it is about a loose hold, allowing for experimentation and discovery at Local levels, and about expansion of proved policies. Think on the effect of recall on mass distribution of anything, because of failed or incompetent testing? The object of Good Government, is serving the needs of it's charge, not the means by which it serves it's charge. The mechanism and it's concerns are secondary to the mechanism's reason for being in the first place.

You make good points, Antagon. We are not that far apart.

The Civil War was not about Federalism (States Rights V.S. Federal Rights), but irreconcilable differences, among them Slavery, and years of Tariff abuse, built up over decades. Agriculture suffered greatly over unfair trade practices that favored industry. Hamilton style schemes that burdened unfairly.

This Book is a great read. [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/dp/1403963037]Amazon.com: Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy (9781403963031): William Watkins: Books[/ame]

 

[antagon]

i wont go as far as to say that the civvy was independent from the issue of states rights and confederacy. the south simply didn't want to participate in the US, and objected to US policy under the decidedly confederate concept of nullification. whether it was the central bank, slavery, tariffs, industry or war, the south had been reticent throughout antebellum when it came to recognizing a national interest at all. finally they wanted out of the constitution whereas the union saw that as theft and treason.

bloodshed on a massive scale.

 

[Intense]

i wont go as far as to say that the civvy was independent from the issue of states rights and confederacy. the south simply didn't want to participate in the US, and objected to US policy under the decidedly confederate concept of nullification. whether it was the central bank, slavery, tariffs, industry or war, the south had been reticent throughout antebellum when it came to recognizing a national interest at all. finally they wanted out of the constitution whereas the union saw that as theft and treason.

bloodshed on a massive scale.

A few Administrations before Lincoln wiped their boots on South Carolina, hurting the State in big way's. It was a long road that brought the South to the Civil War.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Clearly the man is implying that State's Right's died with the Confederacy.

It kinda did. That's why its a shame that the South made a conscious choice to make the stand for State's Rights over the issue of Slavery.

If the South had abolished Slavery, and then decided to leave the Union they almost certainly would have succeeded in their cause. Slavery became an issue that kept the North in the War and the Europeans out of it.

The southern states had no other reason than the right to own human beings to leave the Union.

I don't exactly share that view. A lot of folks forget that during the War of 1812 the Northeastern states were seriously considering succession from the Union too. That was absolutely not about slavery.

I think that there was a case to be made against the Fed in the 19th Century, and a legitimate case to be made for a dissolving of the Union. The problem is that the South, who did have some legitimate issues, failed to abolish slavery before trying to leave.

If the South had abolished slavery, chances are support for the War in the North would have fallen apart after some of the early Confederate victories. The European nations who were put off by the South's slave based economy would have almost certainly jumped on a chance to weaken the United States and entered the war.

As things were though, while the Civil War wasn't entirely about slavery for the South, for the North slavery became one of the primary motivations for the public. It gave the North a sense of "rightness" for their cause, boosted moral, and kept them in the War. The Euopean powers that had abolished slavery stayed out of the war, despite serious business and strategic interests that should have brought them into it.

I think prior to the War there was a case to be made for legal succession. Now its a moot point.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One of Hamilton key reasons for states becoming -rats was to avoid a civil war -- ironic, no?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not at all. Hamilton believed an integrated economic system and uniform international trade laws (two of the reasons for the convention of 1787) were absolutely necessary for a successful union. The issue of slavery, of course, was the reason the system came unsprung.

 

[Bern80]

I have to agree with one of the response posts that the question is rather vague. What is your definition of a 'weak' central government?

If you asked me I would say that would be a government structured such that their are checks and balances that ultimately prevent tyranny on the part of the government. To quote the title of a book, "Power divided is power checked".

There is an awful lot implied in Spidey's question and some assumptions can be made. For those of on here we all know who the conserviatves, libertarians and liberals are and we know spidey's rep as a lib. We see questions like this all the time from all sides and I have to say I don't see the point. It's not like Spidey actually wants to be convinced that the framers intended for their to be central government with limited power. His mind was made up before he asked the question. He's just trying to set up targets to shoot down. He's not actually interested in entertaining the evidence that the framers intended for their to be a weak central government. He likely believes in strong central government with fairly expansive powers. The only question is why? Forget what the framers intent might have been. Why would ANYONE on the left or right want a government to have the authority to be tyrannical? I really don't get it.

As to the evidence that the power of the central government was indeed intended to be limited? There is all kinds of evidence in the consititution and other historical documents for this. The obvious ones being this is the not just America this is the United States of America. If power wasn't meant to be divided why do we have different states that have a certain latitude to do things their own way?

The other asanine argument I saw was 'well the constitution doesn't say the government can't do this or that'. How fucking stupid can you be to ask this? That isn't about politics or framers intent. That is about written english, practicality and common sense. What makes more sense: For a bunch of people to try to come up with every abuse a government might try or ever try and put it to paper (who knows how long the constituion would have to be then) OR to grant the central government some specific powers with the implication that if it isn't written the fed can't do it? And in fact the later isn't even implied in the constitution it fucking says it; those powers not granted to the fed are reserved to the states.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I understand what you are saying, Bern, and the SCOTUS disagrees with you.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

Think we need to understand something.

There were a LOT of Founders. Some where and are famous, most you counldn't name unless you did a deep study.

In an over all sense, I would say no. Those that understood power new that power currupted people and a corrupt governing is what they broke away from.

Some saw the vastness of America and "new" due to the size there would be a need for a strong central power to keep every state moving in the same direction.

But if you just look at how often the 3 branches met in the beginning you can easily determine that they wanted to have little power.

 

[Bern80]

I understand what you are saying, Bern, and the SCOTUS disagrees with you.

About what?

And I again ask if you're siding with SCOTUS and whatever you think their opinion is on limited central government, I again ask why? Why do you want a central government to have enough power that, if abused, jeopardizes your freedom?

 

[JakeStarkey]

A centralized government may very well do that, Bern. We have seen two centuries where state governments certainly did abuse their citizens. I am far more concerned about the far right wacks in my party and what they would do if they got power than I am of the feds right now.

But all that is a glam on the OP. No, the Founders as a group wanted a strong central goveernment so that banking and commerce and interstate regulations were standarized for all players.

 

[Bern80]

A centralized government may very well do that, Bern. We have seen two centuries where state governments certainly did abuse their citizens. I am far more concerned about the far right wacks in my party and what they would do if they got power than I am of the feds right now.

But all that is a glam on the OP. No, the Founders as a group wanted a strong central goveernment so that banking and commerce and interstate regulations were standarized for all players.

And that gets back to my original question. What is meant by 'strong'? Apparently our definitions are different. Certainly I understand the standardization of certain things on a national level. I'm not sure what that has to do with the strength of the central government. Just because some argue that the fed was meant to be weak in terms of power doesn't mean no power and I really don't know how the things you listed are defining characteristics of a 'strong' central government in the sense we are talking about (or at least I am talking about).

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think the question for both of us, then, Bern, is whether the state or the fed should be protecting civil liberties?

Or am I misunderstanding you all together on this. I am not deliberately being obtuse, I guess I am just dense.