If Jefferson founded the Republican Party what place do Democrats have in America?

[regent]

You switched definitions of liberal conservative on me again, from size of government to the struggle against liberal government and now back to size of government. If you can't answer or don't know, why not just evade the post instead reverting to insults.

Too stupid . Conservatives since Jefferson have battled against big liberal government.

Have they just battled big liberal govenment or big government?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Have they just battled big liberal govenment or big government?

Jefferson founded the Republican Party in 1792, with Madison, for the purpose of preventing big liberal government. Modern Republicans have the same identical philosophy.

Moreover, liberalism does not have a place within the concept of freedom. In fact, liberalism is perfectly unAmerican.

 

[regent]

Have they just battled big liberal govenment or big government?

Jefferson founded the Republican Party in 1792, with Madison, for the purpose of preventing big liberal government. Modern Republicans have the same identical philosophy.

Moreover, liberalism does not have a place within the concept of freedom. In fact, liberalism is perfectly unAmerican.

1. So what is this modern Republican philosophy? And please don't give me a rundown on the 1923 World Series as the answer.
2. What was the philosophy of the Republican party of Jefferson and Madison?
3. Where is it written that liberalism is unAmerican?
4. What definition have political scientists, historians given to the tenants of liberalism?

Remember same identical philosophy.
I know what's coming, the results of the 1936 presidential election. Instead of trying to answer all four questions maybe just pick one, go to Wicki and get back to me.

 

[Pheonixops]

The Democratic Party was the home to the conservatives until the middle 1960's.

Actually FDR was the greatest liberal in American History in the
1930's

The Republican Party today maintains a racial make up of about 90% white. For a reason.

yes they have been brainwashed to think the government that enslaved them is now their best friend. Liberal targeting of blacks starting in the 1960's amounted to a near genocide. Now you can understand what Reagan meant when he said, "isn't welfare a from of slavery"

Really? How did the conservatives, WHO WANTED TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO (the Blacks as second class citizens) help "them"? What a stupid way to whitewash history.

 

[Pheonixops]

Also, while the rhetoric of the Republican party is arguably (and in my opinion) a good deal closer to Jefferson's philosophical ideals than that of the Democrats, the majority of the Republican party legislates, whenever it suits them (which is pretty often these days), in favor of limiting individual freedoms, centralizing power to the Federal government, and government redistribution of wealth (typically in the form of corporate subsidies), all of which strike me as being in total opposition to Jeffersonian philosophy. Seems to me that implying that either party has a monopoly on founding principles involves ignoring a lot of what that party actually does.

EXCELLENT POINTS! One current example I can think of is what is happening here in Virginia. I always hear republicans say "keep government out of the way, less government, etc", yet they are trying to pass a bill to require a woman to get an ultrasound before she has an abortion..................the bill is being touted by republicans.

 

[Pheonixops]

There have been two Republican parties in America, the first the liberals, the Jeffersonians, the Antifederalists, formed around 1789. It was this group that fought the ratification of the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights were added. The second Republican party formed in the 1850's and is today's Republican party. The Democrats of today trace their heritage back to Jefferson. The Democratic party was comprised of both liberals and conservatives, the conservatives of the South. Truman began easing the conservatives out of the Democratic party and today the former conservative Democrats have found their home with the present day Republican party.

Yep!

 

[Pheonixops]

<snip>Jefferson formed the Republican Party in 1792 when he left the Washington Administration in disgust . The Republican Party stood for, then and now, freedom and liberty from central government. Now you've got the basics.<snip>

Really? Then why did central government increase under Reagan and Bush?

 

[Pheonixops]

FDR took office when the economy was bad, he took advantage of the desperate people and enacted all his progressive policies during the crisis, all of which failed. Only a world war and the creation of the 'industrial military complex' brought the US out of it.

FDR had no qualms about circumventing the constitution. When many of his New Deal legislation started to be undone by Congress and the Supreme Court, he tried to add more justices to the Supreme Court in order to fill it with a bunch of progressive hacks that would rule in his favor. Thankfully his attempt failed.

Obama is trying his best to mimic FDR. He's used the 'economic crisis' to pass 'stimulous' bills which were nothing more than slush funds for his cronies. He circumvents Congress whenever it suits him. And he is already trying to stir up more wars in the Middle East.

You must have learned US history off of a Beck puddle.

LOL, funny and true!

 

[Peach]

However, of course Jefferson didn't found the Republican Party, so none of that is true -- thank God!

I like the evidence a liberal uses!! It will not even occur to a liberal to have evidence!!

WIKI: The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790's, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights.

It depends on which Republican party you're talking about. The current GOP doesn't trace it's lineage back to the Democratic-Republican party, and you can probably find that if you read further down that Wiki article. The current Republican party was formed in the 1860's.

What place do Democrats have in America?
**************************************
One party rule isn't a...GOOD idea. ; )

 

[code1211]

The Democratic Party was the home to the conservatives until the middle 1960's.

Actually FDR was the greatest liberal in American History in the
1930's

The Republican Party today maintains a racial make up of about 90% white. For a reason.

yes they have been brainwashed to think the government that enslaved them is now their best friend. Liberal targeting of blacks starting in the 1960's amounted to a near genocide. Now you can understand what Reagan meant when he said, "isn't welfare a from of slavery"

Really? How did the conservatives, WHO WANTED TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO (the Blacks as second class citizens) help "them"? What a stupid way to whitewash history.

From a legal stand point, Liberalism is the only device that can strip away rights that are protected by law.

A strict, Conservative interpretation of the law, or of any law that defines the protection of Civl rights, follows the letter of the law. All of the People who are equal before that laws are covered by that ruling.

A Liberal interpretation of any law allows for the authorities to tinker with the meaning and conjure results that include some and exclude others regardless of what the law says.

In this sense, only Liberals can rob a man of rights that are guaranteed under law. It is sometimes justified and sometimes not not based on the justice contained in the law. Dred Scot and Jim Crow come to mind.

However, strip away the layers of this onion, and you will as often find one political party as the other behind the "Liberal" interpretations that embarrass the rest of us looking back at them.

Very recently, it was Democrat appointees who ruled that it is legal and right that the government can strip away the property of one individual and award it to another because the government thinks that this is best.

This is the beginning of the end.

If there are no property rights, there are no rights. Understand clearly that the most personal property one may possess is one's self.

 

[code1211]

Also, while the rhetoric of the Republican party is arguably (and in my opinion) a good deal closer to Jefferson's philosophical ideals than that of the Democrats, the majority of the Republican party legislates, whenever it suits them (which is pretty often these days), in favor of limiting individual freedoms, centralizing power to the Federal government, and government redistribution of wealth (typically in the form of corporate subsidies), all of which strike me as being in total opposition to Jeffersonian philosophy. Seems to me that implying that either party has a monopoly on founding principles involves ignoring a lot of what that party actually does.

EXCELLENT POINTS! One current example I can think of is what is happening here in Virginia. I always hear republicans say "keep government out of the way, less government, etc", yet they are trying to pass a bill to require a woman to get an ultrasound before she has an abortion..................the bill is being touted by republicans.

Given the recent national debate on this topic, is any portion of the cost covered by public money?

 

[code1211]

There have been two Republican parties in America, the first the liberals, the Jeffersonians, the Antifederalists, formed around 1789. It was this group that fought the ratification of the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights were added.

The second Republican party formed in the 1850's and is today's Republican party. The Democrats of today trace their heritage back to Jefferson. The Democratic party was comprised of both liberals and conservatives, the conservatives of the South. Truman began easing the conservatives out of the Democratic party and today the former conservative Democrats have found their home with the present day Republican party.

Are you sure that you want to use support of the Bill of Rights as proof that the the Democrat party supports the ideas of Jefferson?

I could be very wrong on this as I'm not a lawyer, thereby retaining some morality, but it seems to me that the Democrat Party stridently opposes the amendments highlighted in RED, both parties support the amendments in BLUE, and the recent rulings of Democrat appointees undermine the intent of those in GREEN. By my count that puts you under 50% of the contested amendments.

Does trampling the Bill of Rights mean support in today's lexicon?

http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html

Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
Right to keep and bear arms
Conditions for quarters of soldiers
Right of search and seizure regulated
Provisons concerning prosecution
Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
Right to a trial by jury
Excessive bail, cruel punishment
Rule of construction of Constitution
Rights of the States under Constitution



TOP

Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
TOP

Right to keep and bear arms

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
TOP

Conditions for quarters of soldiers

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
TOP

Right of search and seizure regulated

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
TOP

Provisons concerning prosecution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
TOP

Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
TOP

Right to a trial by jury

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
TOP

Excessive bail, cruel punishment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
TOP

Rule of construction of Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
TOP

Rights of the States under Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[code1211]

<snip>Jefferson formed the Republican Party in 1792 when he left the Washington Administration in disgust . The Republican Party stood for, then and now, freedom and liberty from central government. Now you've got the basics.<snip>

Really? Then why did central government increase under Reagan and Bush?

You're right the two parties we are currently saddled with are Communist lite and Communist a little bit liter.

Every time the Government takes away a right and makes it a privilege, that right ceases to exist.

Our current government is changing the definition of entitlements to mean rights. Find for me healthcare or transportation or any of the New deal "rights" in the Bill of Rights or the Enumerated Powers.

Welfare is not welfare as understood by the Founders. It's charity. That does not particularly make it either bad or wrong. It's just not a part of the Founder's understanding of what a government is charged to do.

 

[regent]

Welfare was a state responsiblity until the Great Depression and during that crisis states could not handle the welfare needed so the national government assumed that responsibility. During the Clinton administration welfare was pretty much turned back to the states.
Entitlements mean rights as entitled by law.
The Supreme Court has reviewed all of the New Deal Acts and declared some Constitutional and some not.
As Justice Hughes said, the Constitution is what the Court say it is.

 

[Dragon]

Welfare is not welfare as understood by the Founders. It's charity. That does not particularly make it either bad or wrong. It's just not a part of the Founder's understanding of what a government is charged to do.

Welfare and the sense of aid to the poor and the "general welfare" as that phrase is used in the Constitution are not identical, true; however that the founders didn't understand aid to the poor to be part of what government is charged to do is NOT true.

US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

The responsibility of government to provide assistance to the poor, especially to poor children and to those who cannot work, goes back to before the U.S. was even founded. Even when the federal government stayed out of it, it was always a responsibility of government at the state level.

 

[code1211]

Welfare is not welfare as understood by the Founders. It's charity. That does not particularly make it either bad or wrong. It's just not a part of the Founder's understanding of what a government is charged to do.

Welfare and the sense of aid to the poor and the "general welfare" as that phrase is used in the Constitution are not identical, true; however that the founders didn't understand aid to the poor to be part of what government is charged to do is NOT true.

US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

The responsibility of government to provide assistance to the poor, especially to poor children and to those who cannot work, goes back to before the U.S. was even founded. Even when the federal government stayed out of it, it was always a responsibility of government at the state level.

"The Founders" is a phrase that restricts the conversation to the Federal government.

During the Washington Administration, how much aid to the poor was provided by the Federal Government? As large or small at that amount is should pretty well describe what the Founders felt the Federal Government involvement in the charity to the poor should be.

 

[Dragon]

"The Founders" is a phrase that restricts the conversation to the Federal government.

It actually doesn't matter one way or the other. That the federal government stayed out of providing aid to the poor for so long was purely a function of custom and lack of perceived need, not because the Constitution doesn't authorize it. The Constitution does, and there has never been any serious controversy in court about that at all.

 

[Pheonixops]

Actually FDR was the greatest liberal in American History in the
1930's




yes they have been brainwashed to think the government that enslaved them is now their best friend. Liberal targeting of blacks starting in the 1960's amounted to a near genocide. Now you can understand what Reagan meant when he said, "isn't welfare a from of slavery"

Really? How did the conservatives, WHO WANTED TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO (the Blacks as second class citizens) help "them"? What a stupid way to whitewash history.

From a legal stand point, Liberalism is the only device that can strip away rights that are protected by law.

A strict, Conservative interpretation of the law, or of any law that defines the protection of Civl rights, follows the letter of the law. All of the People who are equal before that laws are covered by that ruling.

A Liberal interpretation of any law allows for the authorities to tinker with the meaning and conjure results that include some and exclude others regardless of what the law says.

In this sense, only Liberals can rob a man of rights that are guaranteed under law. It is sometimes justified and sometimes not not based on the justice contained in the law. Dred Scot and Jim Crow come to mind.

However, strip away the layers of this onion, and you will as often find one political party as the other behind the "Liberal" interpretations that embarrass the rest of us looking back at them.

Very recently, it was Democrat appointees who ruled that it is legal and right that the government can strip away the property of one individual and award it to another because the government thinks that this is best.

This is the beginning of the end.

If there are no property rights, there are no rights. Understand clearly that the most personal property one may possess is one's self.

Nice argument, but not really. Take a look at my sig line to see the true definition of Liberal. The Amendment process to the Constitution is a Liberal process. Without that process, the conservative status quo would have remained and there would be not be any 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. "The Thirteenth Amendment (both proposed and ratified in 1865) abolished slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment (proposed in 1866 and ratified in 1868) included the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The Fifteenth Amendment, (proposed in 1869 and ratified in 1870 under the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant) grants voting rights regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" There would be no women's suffrage; the 19th Amendment. Conservatives wanted to keep the status quo and have some people remain as second class citizens, the Liberals fought to change that.

 

[Pheonixops]

Also, while the rhetoric of the Republican party is arguably (and in my opinion) a good deal closer to Jefferson's philosophical ideals than that of the Democrats, the majority of the Republican party legislates, whenever it suits them (which is pretty often these days), in favor of limiting individual freedoms, centralizing power to the Federal government, and government redistribution of wealth (typically in the form of corporate subsidies), all of which strike me as being in total opposition to Jeffersonian philosophy. Seems to me that implying that either party has a monopoly on founding principles involves ignoring a lot of what that party actually does.

EXCELLENT POINTS! One current example I can think of is what is happening here in Virginia. I always hear republicans say "keep government out of the way, less government, etc", yet they are trying to pass a bill to require a woman to get an ultrasound before she has an abortion..................the bill is being touted by republicans.

Given the recent national debate on this topic, is any portion of the cost covered by public money?

I am not sure, that's a good argument that can evolve into many other discussions like Georgetown and other Catholic institutions that may receive public funds as well.

 

[Pheonixops]

<snip>Jefferson formed the Republican Party in 1792 when he left the Washington Administration in disgust . The Republican Party stood for, then and now, freedom and liberty from central government. Now you've got the basics.<snip>

Really? Then why did central government increase under Reagan and Bush?

You're right the two parties we are currently saddled with are Communist lite and Communist a little bit liter.

Every time the Government takes away a right and makes it a privilege, that right ceases to exist.

Our current government is changing the definition of entitlements to mean rights. Find for me healthcare or transportation or any of the New deal "rights" in the Bill of Rights or the Enumerated Powers.

Welfare is not welfare as understood by the Founders. It's charity. That does not particularly make it either bad or wrong. It's just not a part of the Founder's understanding of what a government is charged to do.

LOL, good points. It's nice to find some people here (you) who don't turn a debate into a "fuck you" contest.

I agree with your points above and respect your POV.