Did the Founders want a weak central government?

[antagon]

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.

i'd only go as far as that they were split on the extent of central government's strength. the semantics of strong or weak and central vs state throw this discussion off. as far as personal liberties go, i dont think many of the founders felt that state rights were protective of such, and were not confederate on that basis. they sought to have a central government which could make protections uniformed across the states - one of the major themes in the constitution. for others, but i would argue fewer delegates, there was the issue of empowerment of state governments. this sentiment resurged after the ratification, having left a sour taste in the mouth of the parties to the articles of confederation.

interestingly, bern80 closed his rant referring to deference of unspecified rights to the states, where the constitution defers to states and individuals. the alternative perspective which many of the founders held, maintains that the US is a protector of rights from states. such is the function of the SCOTUS and fed circuits on many occasions: superceding the judgement of states once determined they've demured their constituent's rights to their own.

 

[Bern80]

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.

I think it should be the Feds job to protect civil liberties. I DON'T think that duty, in of itself, is what would define it as being 'strong'.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I disagree with your first paragraph. The proof in the pudding is the anti-rats' demands for 1st Amendment guarantees because the last thing they wanted was the feds telling them how to regulate their churches or their political speech or the carrying of weapons or search and seizure and so on. The Founders were overwhelmingly pro-republican and anti-democratic in political philosophy. So I don't see them as seeing the national government the protector of civil liberties.

 

[antagon]

how do you reconcile the bill of rights or the those limitations of government in the constitution with the supremacy of the judiciary and the US if they weren't aimed at emplacing definative, uniformed rights in a centrally inforceable position.

if the founders were anti-democratic, that is reflected in their being no suffrage amendment. they were concerned about property and arms rights. those were protected, and against militias as mutually as the army or navy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The bill of rights was to pacify the anti-rats so that the states would not feel threatened by the national government.

There was no supremacy of the judiciary in 1787, or 1793, or 1800 until John Marshall and his court decided that the SCOTUS was going to be the final arbiter. Not that it was going to be easy: Jefferson tried to have Justice Salmon Chase impeached and convicted on political charges; Jackson as president ignored the court's rulings protecting the sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation; and Abraham Lincoln and his fellow Whigs becoming Republicans had flatly committed themselves to make sure Dred Scott was dead as a letter of the law.

 

[antagon]

c'mon jake. how much more directly can the desire for federal oversight of states be read from history than the fact that the shays' rebellion was the straw that broke the back of the articles? "the supreme law of the land" so that states were mandated to provide haebeus corpus among a host of other issues arising from that matter. you are only referring to the the 10th amendment exclusively with that states' protection bit, whereas the first 8 amendments could be construed as extending protections trampled by MA during the shays'... and for the central and state governments at once.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Antagon, you are not describing what I said at all and your inference is goofy.

One, the Founders were overwhelmingly anti-democratic, pro-business, and afraid of large national government telling the states what they could do socially and culturally and, to an extent, politically.

Two, the government as conceived by them is not what we have now, and that is fine by me. But not let's pretend that somehow those guys were secret goingtobe libs and progressives of the latter half of the 20 century.

 

[Bern80]

The government as conceived by them is not what we have now, and that is fine by me. But not let's pretend that somehow those guys were secret goingtobe libs and progressives of the latter half of the 20 century.

Again, my question is why? What is it you are afraid will happen if the central government doesn't have enough power?

If the government now wasn't what the framers intended and what they intended is essentially what made it into the constitution, aren't you basically admitting that the constitution should not be striclty intepreted?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The intent of the Founders has absolutely nothing to do with what we do today. To think otherwise is to make reason stare. Anyone who suggests suggest nonsense is appealing to false authority. However, Bern, you are suggesting that you believe the Constitution is an organic document to be interpreted for generations as they perceive and not be dictated to by dead men more than 200 years ago.

 

[antagon]

starkey, this is the statement of yours i've contested:

"The bill of rights was to pacify the anti-rats so that the states would not feel threatened by the national government."

i've pointed out that this cannot be supported because the bill of rights only empowers the states with part of the 10th amendment. in the historical context which the constitution was drafted, that is in the wake of the shays' rebellion and arguably specifically because of it, tells more. during the shays' MA denied habeas corpus, searched and seized homes, barred rights of assembly and speech, abandoned due process, sentenced cruel punishments. criminalized bearing of arms... this is the bear share of the bill of rights. this, not states rights are the impetus of the majority of the amendments... 9/10ths.

 

[Bern80]

The intent of the Founders has absolutely nothing to do with what we do today. To think otherwise is to make reason stare.

Why? Why do you suggest the words on paper can't be applied across generations?

Anyone who suggests suggest nonsense is appealing to false authority. However, Bern, you are suggesting that you believe the Constitution is an organic document to be interpreted for generations as they perceive and not be dictated to by dead men more than 200 years ago.

The statement is tough to understand what you are saying. Are you claiming I do or do not believe the constitution should be an organic document? Because I think I've said before I don't believe it is an organic document. IF you are claiming it is an organic document then I contend that is what is nonsensical. How can words already put to paper be organic? They can't change. They say what they say and mean what they mean. You can't redefine words for convenience. The document is only organic in the sense that the framers did include a process for ammending it. There is no 'interpreting' the constitution. Government either abides by what it says or it ignores. It's just that some people don't have the integrity to admit it's the later they are doing when they say they are 'interpreting' it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you, Bern, for fairly stating what you believe.

Those like you who are bound to the past are mortgaging your future.

 

[editec]

They wanted to most bang for the buck.

Bang = effective governance
Buck = the amount of freedom they'd have to give up.

They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.

So they went with a stronger central government and that worked fairly well, but as we can all see, the power of the central government has gorwn stronger over time.

They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.

What kind of kool aid are you drinking?????

The system they tried was Federalism, you Jack Ass.

And what kind of government were they abandoning, Intense?

A CONFDERATION, right?

And FYI, it is entirely possible to disagree with me without being disagreeable, lad.

I have no doubt you imagine that insulting people makes your arguments look stronger, but take my word for it when I tell you it doesn't.

So let's recap, shall we?

1. We had a confederate form of government before we wrote the current constitutional form of government we have now, so on that point, you simply misread my post

2. Attacking people personally, even if they had been wrong ---which, in this case, I was not -- doesn't make you look like a very strong person, it makes you look like a hysterical little bully.

3. When you try to teach your grandfather how to suck eggs, you'd best be a hell of a lot more experienced in egg suckery than your GP.

Here endth today's lesson, Lad.

 

[Bern80]

Thank you, Bern, for fairly stating what you believe.

Those like you who are bound to the past are mortgaging your future.

How am I bound to the past? How does abiding by the constitution as it is written and constructed sacrafice the future?

And if that is what YOU believe, then man up and answer the question; If your contention is that the document is too antiquated to be applicable today are you not contending that we really don't have to adhere to the constitution at all?

 

[Liberty]

Limited and enumerated powers that were specifically granted along with the stipulation that those powers not granted to the fed are reserved for the states and individuals.... while not 'weak' the founders clearly sought to limit the powers of the fed... unlike what left wingers believe

Yet ironically in the other thread you are arguing that the federal government has the power to infringe on or take away my right to travel, despite there being no such enumerated power in the Constitution.

10th amendment, dumbass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We do abide by the Constitution as it is written and interpreted, that's the point.

Your argument is antique and quaint: take it up with SCOTUS and constitutional scholars.

 

[Bern80]

We do abide by the Constitution as it is written and interpreted, that's the point.

Your argument is antique and quaint: take it up with SCOTUS and constitutional scholars.

Huh? If we do abide by the constitution as it is written as you contend, and that is what I suggest we do as well, what about my position is antique and jeopardizes the future of the country?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because if you think SCOTUS over the decades has eviscerated your concept of the Constitution, you are looking to the past.

Hint: we are not going there.

 

[Bern80]

Because if you think SCOTUS over the decades has eviscerated your concept of the Constitution, you are looking to the past.

Hint: we are not going there.

Jake we both just agreed that the constitution should be abided by as it is written and constructed. Based on the above your position than has to be that SCOTUS is simply not capable of incorrectly interpreting the constitution.....you're right Jake, you don't want to go there.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because if you think SCOTUS over the decades has eviscerated your concept of the Constitution, you are looking to the past.

Hint: we are not going there.

Jake we both just agreed that the constitution should be abided by as it is written and constructed. Based on the above your position than has to be that SCOTUS is simply not capable of incorrectly interpreting the constitution.....you're right Jake, you don't want to go there.

I said "if YOU think", not if I think, Bern. You are projecting. Your internet opinion is wrong, SCOTUS is right, and we don't have to go there. However, no one is stopping you from making that journey to futility.