Political Views of the Founding Fathers

[BluePhantom]

And yes they would be upset with the modern Democratic party-but they would also be upset with the modern Republican party. To think otherwise is just living with the blinders on. They would have outraged of presidents waging war without congressional approval.

The constitution itself was a compromise (represented mainly by Madison and Hamilton), and was designed to change with the times.

PS-Adams was the first founding father to propose independence, in reference to your previous post. And he also represented the British during the Boston Massacre.

The founding fathers aren't as black and white as you like to pretend. But you simply believe bullshit, so it satisfies your cognitive dissonance.

Yes they would be very upset with modern Republicans in a lot of ways. However....the Constitution does not require congressional approval for the president to take military action. The president can do what he wishes. Congress has the option of interjecting if they choose to do so but they are not required to interject nor is the president required to get congressional approval.

Also go read my OP and you will see that I point out clearly that the founding fathers were not black and white but there is a lot of crossover to consider. And BTW....using philosophical terms like "cognitive dissonance" may impress Richard, but I can assure you I have no feelings of internal conflict or remorse. All that tells me is I am about to deal with a pseudo-intellectual jack ass who has a vocabulary and took psych 101.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

And yes they would be upset with the modern Democratic party-but they would also be upset with the modern Republican party. To think otherwise is just living with the blinders on. They would have outraged of presidents waging war without congressional approval.

The constitution itself was a compromise (represented mainly by Madison and Hamilton), and was designed to change with the times.

PS-Adams was the first founding father to propose independence, in reference to your previous post. And he also represented the British during the Boston Massacre.

The founding fathers aren't as black and white as you like to pretend. But you simply believe bullshit, so it satisfies your cognitive dissonance.

Yes they would be very upset with modern Republicans in a lot of ways. However....the Constitution does not require congressional approval for the president to take military action. The president can do what he wishes. Congress has the option of interjecting if they choose to do so but they are not required to interject nor is the president required to get congressional approval.

Also go read my OP and you will see that I point out clearly that the founding fathers were not black and white but there is a lot of crossover to consider. And BTW....using philosophical terms like "cognitive dissonance" may impress Richard, but I can assure you I have no feelings of internal conflict or remorse. All that tells me is I am about to deal with a pseudo-intellectual jack ass who has a vocabulary and took psych 101.

I used cognitive dissonance not to sound like I use big words, that's silly. Nowhere else in my post did I use any terms or language like that. If I did-you might have a point. I used it mainly because I couldn't think of anything else to describe it as, off the top of my head.

And according to the constitution Article 1 Section 8 congress has the power to:

-To declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water

-To provide and maintain a Navy

-To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces



Article 2 Section 2, regarding the president's military power:

-The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices,

This isn't the mention the obvious 3rd amendment.

So no the president doesn't have the constitution authority to "do what he wishes" with regards tot he military.

 

[Chris]

The "Founding Fathers" owned slaves.

Therefore, they would be modern day Republicans.

 

[ladyliberal]

Interesting discussion.

-- I lack the subject matter expertise that others in this discussion seem to have demonstrated. If I make factual errors, by all means correct me.

-- I'm going to focus on where I disagree with you or feel that something has been unsaid. I completely agree with you in many places, but I'm not going to list those.

-- While the discussion is interesting, I don't expect it to influence my views. That is, by all means debate what John Jay would have thought about net neutrality, but don't expect me to adjust my views to what I think his would have been.

-- Summing up one's politics by the single dimension of left-right is incredibly reductive. I'm happy to use it out of convenience, but we should expect any founding father to form their own fairly coherent views rather than adopt wholesale any political philosophy present today in total.

-- I think your conclusion that the founders would have opposed abortion is worse than speculative. Abortion did exist in their day as a social issue, just not as a major political one. As far as I know, early pregnancy abortion was legal in every state and none of the founders raised any public objections. Your extrapolation seems to be that since all of the founders were morally opposed to slavery even though they all wanted it to be legal, they would necessarily be morally opposed to abortion and want it to be illegal. This seems to apply the relation between morality and law inconsistently, and to incorrectly assume that anyone moral will oppose abortion. It's also true that much of the early opposition to abortion was due to dangers that no longer exist due to improvements in medical technology.

-- When the Constitution was proposed, people were very aware of the fact that certain clauses (eg, Welfare, Commerce) could be cited in a broad use of federal powers even without further amendment. Further, it was not at all clear at the time that the Supreme Court would strike down acts of Congress as unconstitutional, meaning that the practical limits the Constitution set on the Federal government were necessarily weak. In short, a number of people were well aware that the Constitution as originally constructed (I'm a little hazy on how this perception changed with the adoption of the tenth amendment) could lead to the level of federal control we have today.

-- A number of amendments were adopted to the Constitution that either increased the power of the federal government or decreased the power of the states by increasing the power of the people: 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 (repealed), 19, 23, 24, 26. This doesn't directly address what the founders thought, but it does demonstrate that democratic supermajorities have consistently held that our structure of government should not remain as it was at the time of the founders.

-- You say that the Federalists and modern Democrats thought similarly about the role of the military. Isn't that backwards? Federalists wanted a stronger military than DRs, and modern Republicans want a stronger military than Democrats.

-- I disagree with your conclusion that there is no question that the founding fathers would be Republicans/ Tea Partiers if alive today.

* Firstly, there is a question of methodology: your statement is counterfactual and it would be perfectly defensible to to toss it out as meaningless on those grounds alone.

* Secondly, your characterization of the founders' views seems skewed by the fact that you are discounting Hamilton's philosophy as essentially a sham designed to enhance his personal power. I believe that there were a number of people who essentially shared his views, and characterizing them as budding despots and Jeffersonians as purely public-minded seems unfair.


* Thirdly, the founders would surely have supported different policies today than they did in their own time. The Wikipedia article on the living constitution, Living Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, has a number of quotes from founders suggesting that they wanted future societies to alter their form of government (to a degree) to meet their new needs and values. Surely the founders themselves expected to alter their own philosophies (to a degree) throughout their lives. A founder who found himself alive today would be no more likely to eliminate the income tax or disband the army than he would be to reinstate slavery. He would recognize that society had changed, and might even favor raising taxes or increasing the power of the federal government over the states (or not, who know? It's counterfactual).

 

[NYcarbineer]

I If we equate the moral question of slavery to the moral question of abortion, the evidence would suggest that all of them would likely be pro-life and the Federalist side (which was tenaciously against slavery) would be HEAVILY pro-life. .

Pure nonsense. Abortion up to the time of quickening was legal in the colonies, as well as being permissible according to the Protestant churches of the times. The idea that the Founders would for some reason be unanimously and adamantly opposed to this is preposterous.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I had just made this point on Facebook about a day before they eliminated the Discussion Boards. I thought I would post it here since it got deleted there. Besides I think I will get a much better response here.


A frequent thing that seems to come up in political debates and discussions is the political views of the founding fathers: would they be Democrats or Republicans in the modern era?

I dunno - which one of those parties supports slavery and only white men voting?

 

[francoHFW]

A third of them owned slaves, so a third would be Republicans. But that was before slavery was reprehensible, so only a sixth would be Pubs...but now there's no frontier to develop, so we're going to grow up and take care of each other, so all the smart ones would be DEMOCRATS, and the stupid greedy reprehensible ones would be greedy reprehensible Pubs who use TV and radio to brainwash the ignorant fools who wouldn't have even been allowed to VOTE back then.

Blue, aren't you too smart to be a Neocon idiot? So you're Bill Scranton or AU H2O ?

 

[dblack]

-- I think your conclusion that the founders would have opposed abortion is worse than speculative. Abortion did exist in their day as a social issue, just not as a major political one. As far as I know, early pregnancy abortion was legal in every state and none of the founders raised any public objections. Your extrapolation seems to be that since all of the founders were morally opposed to slavery even though they all wanted it to be legal, they would necessarily be morally opposed to abortion and want it to be illegal. This seems to apply the relation between morality and law inconsistently, and to incorrectly assume that anyone moral will oppose abortion. It's also true that much of the early opposition to abortion was due to dangers that no longer exist due to improvements in medical technology.

Good point.

-- When the Constitution was proposed, people were very aware of the fact that certain clauses (eg, Welfare, Commerce) could be cited in a broad use of federal powers even without further amendment.

I think you're wrong on this one. The Anti-Federalists worried that the clauses you cite might be interpreted broadly, but were persuaded by the supporters of the constitution (the Federalists) that this would not happen. Even Hamilton lobbied for ratification by insisting that no reasonable person could interpret the general welfare clause as a broad general power (which was particularly deceptive on his part, given that he later used just such an 'interpretation' when it suited his political ambitions). The argument is well documented and concerns over expansive federal power were assuaged with clear statements indicated that the enumerate powers were meant to be exclusive; that they were designed to limit federal power.

-- A number of amendments were adopted to the Constitution that either increased the power of the federal government or decreased the power of the states by increasing the power of the people: 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 (repealed), 19, 23, 24, 26. This doesn't directly address what the founders thought, but it does demonstrate that democratic supermajorities have consistently held that our structure of government should not remain as it was at the time of the founders.

Yes, and that's the way it's supposed to work. The amendment process is the right way to alter the powers we grant to government. Sadly, we've abandoned that approach, instead seeking stealth expansion of government power through successive 'reinterpretations' of the Constitution. A long line of ambitious leaders (FDR wasn't the first) found it easier than actually amending the Constitution.



Overall, I don't find it particularly useful to dwell on what the founders wanted. It's important when deliberating on what the words in the Constitution are supposed to mean, but in the end it's our country, and it's our Constitution. It should mean what we want it to mean. But it should be clear and concise. If it doesn't draw strict boundaries around government power, there's not much point in having a constitution at all.

 

[francoHFW]

The founders were right, in that they were Francophile Enlightenment dudes. Voltairian Freethinkers. And the French are STILL right. lol. Night kids..."Franco" is supposed to be "Francophile" but wouldn't work...

 

[midcan5]

....Yeah I read that. Looks like what you did was to start with a conclusion and then look for every little nasty thing Republicans have ever done and wrote a timeline to support your initial conclusion. Additionally, there's some real interesting revisionist history in there. For example, you seem to give credit to the Democrats for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Uhhhhh....no. Northern Democrats and Republicans were on board but opposition came from inside the Democratic party. The KKK was considered at the time to be the militant wing of the Democrats. While the GOP and northern Dems were fighting for civil rights for blacks, other Democrats were hanging people from trees and blowing up churches. LBJ didn't even want to sign the bill. The suggestion (this has never been well documented) is that LBJ only agreed to sign it if King and Jackson would deliver the black vote to the Democrats. When he finally did his words were "we just lost the south for a generation" and he threw his pen on his desk in disgust....

I checked a bit of the KKK and it seems they backed both sides dependent on time, but that is hardly relevant given the KKK and the hatred they represent. I think I will leave them out as they do neither party nor America any good. Ku Klux Klan

But when 'suggestions' pretend to be history it is better to get some facts or leave that out as well.

This still looks interesting but I have too many darn books to read now. I'll have to live to 150.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Idea-America-Reflections-United-States/dp/1594202907/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1]Amazon.com: The Idea of America: Reflections on the Birth of the United States (9781594202902): Gordon S. Wood: Books[/ame]


And if you want to read one of the best narrative histories ever written check this out in the used book section. I have the single book copy. [ame]http://www.amazon.com/Glory-Dream-Narrative-History-1932-1972/dp/0553345893/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321457860&sr=1-1[/ame]

 

[editec]

This society, indeed this world, is so very different than the world of the Floundering Fathers that trying to compare their political POVs with ours is a fools' mission.

 

[dblack]

This society, indeed this world, is so very different than the world of the Floundering Fathers that trying to compare their political POVs with ours is a fools' mission.

It's different in many ways. In many ways it's not. The basic philosophies debated by the founders have changed very little. Balancing democracy with the rights of the minority is still pretty much the same tradeoff. We'd be foolish do disregard educated opinions on the subject, regardless of when they were formed.

 

[BluePhantom]

And according to the constitution Article 1 Section 8 congress has the power to:

-To declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water

-To provide and maintain a Navy

-To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces



Article 2 Section 2, regarding the president's military power:

-The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices,

This isn't the mention the obvious 3rd amendment.

So no the president doesn't have the constitution authority to "do what he wishes" with regards tot he military.

Hmmm..... I was hoping to address midcan5's well thought out post today (and hopefully I will have more time later on) but it seems I am going to get sidetracked by some other stuff.

Ok.... Congress has the authority to "declare war" but the president has the authority to take military action when he sees fit. He "may demand that others give their opinions" but he is not "required to demand that other give their opinions."

This was later clarified in the War Powers Resolution which states that the President must inform Congress of the intent to use military force within 48 hours of engagement and get the approval of Congress for continued troop activity in a foreign nation after 60 days have passed. In other words he is free to do what he wishes for 60 days (with an additional 30 days given for withdrawal) when American troops have been committed to military action. If he wishes to continue after those 60/90 days have passed he must get either a "declaration of war" or an "authorization for the use of military force" from Congress. Bombing does not fit into this because American troops are not involved in bombing campaigns.

War and Treaty Powers of the U. S. Constitution

THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM

 

[BluePhantom]

I had just made this point on Facebook about a day before they eliminated the Discussion Boards. I thought I would post it here since it got deleted there. Besides I think I will get a much better response here.


A frequent thing that seems to come up in political debates and discussions is the political views of the founding fathers: would they be Democrats or Republicans in the modern era?

I dunno - which one of those parties supports slavery and only white men voting?

Well historically dumb ass that would be the Democrats

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thick skin, thin posts. Sorry man, that was too much to read. Sum it up.

Or as I like to put it...

...if you don't have anything to say, at least try to be brief.

 

[Wiseacre]

The issues of the limitations of gov't and how much power should be given to it were not inconsequential back then. Many did not want the elite ruling the country, same as today.

 

[BluePhantom]

A third of them owned slaves, so a third would be Republicans.

I have never seen a comment through which someone as proudly demonstrates their ignorance. The Republicans, for which Lincoln was the first president, were formed for the specific purpose of ending slavery. The Democrats opposed and end to slavery.

The Republicans fought for the passage of the 15th Amendment giving blacks the right to vote. The Democrats opposed that Amendment. (Passage of the Fifteenth Amendment . U.S. Grant: Warrior . WGBH American Experience | PBS)

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was primarily opposed by Democrats. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was vehemently opposed by Democrats. Almost 40% of Democrats (compared to roughly 19% of Republicans) opposed the latter, while opposition by the Democrats in regards to the former was also about double that of Republican opposition. (King, Desmond (1995). Separate and Unequal: Black Americans and the US Federal Government. p. 311.)

I have to work. I will get to the rest later.

 

[dblack]

The issues of the limitations of gov't and how much power should be given to it were not inconsequential back then. Many did not want the elite ruling the country, same as today.

They were also (quite wisely in my opinion) wary of unlimited democracy. The limitations on government are limitations on democracy - and I'm not sure everyone gets that. The point is not just to prevent a ruling elite, but to limit the extent to which the majority can force its will on them minority via the power of the vote.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

And according to the constitution Article 1 Section 8 congress has the power to:

-To declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water

-To provide and maintain a Navy

-To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces



Article 2 Section 2, regarding the president's military power:

-The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices,

This isn't the mention the obvious 3rd amendment.

So no the president doesn't have the constitution authority to "do what he wishes" with regards tot he military.

Hmmm..... I was hoping to address midcan5's well thought out post today (and hopefully I will have more time later on) but it seems I am going to get sidetracked by some other stuff.

Ok.... Congress has the authority to "declare war" but the president has the authority to take military action when he sees fit. He "may demand that others give their opinions" but he is not "required to demand that other give their opinions."

This was later clarified in the War Powers Resolution which states that the President must inform Congress of the intent to use military force within 48 hours of engagement and get the approval of Congress for continued troop activity in a foreign nation after 60 days have passed. In other words he is free to do what he wishes for 60 days (with an additional 30 days given for withdrawal) when American troops have been committed to military action. If he wishes to continue after those 60/90 days have passed he must get either a "declaration of war" or an "authorization for the use of military force" from Congress. Bombing does not fit into this because American troops are not involved in bombing campaigns.

War and Treaty Powers of the U. S. Constitution

THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM

-I clearly said in my post that a president cannot move troops for an extended period of time. I never discussed bombing-so I have no clue why you brought that up. But Republicans (as well as Democrats), have waged wars where US soldiers have been in foreign countries for years and years, without congressional approval. That's what I stated. Your post just now supports that-thanks.

BTW the War Powers Act is NOT a part of the constitution. And that act can be deemed unconstitutional at a later time (although I seriously doubt it ever will be).

 

[BluePhantom]

Interesting discussion.

-- Summing up one's politics by the single dimension of left-right is incredibly reductive. I'm happy to use it out of convenience, but we should expect any founding father to form their own fairly coherent views rather than adopt wholesale any political philosophy present today in total.

I think that's fair and I believe I pointed out in my OP that the FFs would not fit cleanly into any modern political party. My premise was they they would have more in common with the Republicans as opposed to the Democrats. You will note that I did not use absolute language in my assessment.

-- I think your conclusion that the founders would have opposed abortion is worse than speculative.

Well you asked to be corrected so allow me to do just that. James Wilson, who was a signatory of the Declaration of Independence, a major contributor to the Constitution, and one of the first Supreme Court Justices actually addressed the topic of abortion. Wilson's views overall were widely endorsed by Madison, Jefferson, Washington, etc. He wrote:

“With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.” (“Lectures on Law,” Ch. 12, p. 597 in The Works of James Wilson. ed. Robert G. McCloskey (1967))

Indeed, if this was accepted as the legal definition of "life" then the statement by the FFs in the Declaration of Independence that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.", then I would say that my assertion that the FFs would likely be pro-life is far from speculative.

I would concede that, since abortion is not addressed specifically in the Constitution, and argument could be made that the FFs either felt it was an implied issue covered under the 9th Amendment, or at best was a states rights issue according to the 10th Amendment.

-- When the Constitution was proposed, people were very aware of the fact that certain clauses (eg, Welfare, Commerce) could be cited in a broad use of federal powers even without further amendment. Further, it was not at all clear at the time that the Supreme Court would strike down acts of Congress as unconstitutional, meaning that the practical limits the Constitution set on the Federal government were necessarily weak. In short, a number of people were well aware that the Constitution as originally constructed (I'm a little hazy on how this perception changed with the adoption of the tenth amendment) could lead to the level of federal control we have today.

A compelling argument. Yet Article III. Section 2. states: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority..." As Article I of the Constitution is specific in that Congress exists to create laws it's difficult to see how the SCOTUS was not intended to rule upon the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress. I get the gist of your argument though and I will tell you how perception changed given the 10th Amendment.

Initially, the court interpreted their powers very broadly. The first two presidents (Washington and Adams) were either Federalist (Adams) or had a federalist lean (Washington). Jay was a Federalist as well so Washington and Adams didn't challenge the court very much because the court tended to agree with them. At the end of Adams' term he filled the courts with Federalist judges in what was known as the "midnight appointments". Jefferson spent a great deal of time trying to get those judges out but was largely unsuccessful. During the Madison and Monroe administrations they really had other things to worry about (such as the War of 1812) and by that time they had also been able to assign justices more in line with their philosophy anyhow.

Andrew Jackson (D) really challenged the SCOUTS however and very frequently ignored their rulings. The most famous example, of course was the SCOTUS ruling in Worcester v. Georgia wherein the Marshall court ruled that Jackson's attempt to remove the Cherokee from their lands was illegal. Jackson's response was "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." What followed of course was the Trail of Tears and widespread ethnic cleansing in regards to several Native American tribes.

So in regards to the 10th Amendment and the increased power of government, it's primarily because the SCOTUS likes power too, presidents always attempt to pack the court with justices who support their views (nowhere was this more evident than FDR attempting to flood the SCOTUS when they kept striking down his policies), and rarely is the SCOTUS ever really challenged. They pretty much do what they want and that's pretty much it.

Back to the point. Yes I would agree that the FFs may have been aware that the inclusion of such clauses and language within the Constitution could eventually lead to an increase in federal authority, but that is not to say that they would have welcomed or endorsed it. Indeed, as has been said several times before by many posters, these guys simply did not want an intrusive form of federal government. They had just gone to war to get rid of that exact thing, and the 10th Amendment is very clear that what is not specifically empowered to the federal government by the Constitution is up to the individual states. That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for big government to me.

-- A number of amendments were adopted to the Constitution that either increased the power of the federal government or decreased the power of the states by increasing the power of the people: 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 (repealed), 19, 23, 24, 26. This doesn't directly address what the founders thought...

I think I will let the part of your statement that I highlighted speak for itself.

-- You say that the Federalists and modern Democrats thought similarly about the role of the military. Isn't that backwards? Federalists wanted a stronger military than DRs, and modern Republicans want a stronger military than Democrats.

Well kind of yes and kind of no. The Federalists did most certainly want a stronger military than the DRs initially. This is evidenced by Adams building an army and navy during the Quasi War and in regards to dealing with the Barbary Pirates, and the dismantling of all that by Jefferson. However, Jefferson himself admitted that was a mistake in later letters to Adams following his terms of office. (BTW...if you ever get a chance read those series of letters between Jefferson and Adams. They are very enlightening). Following Jefferson's terms, Madison recognized Jefferson's error and built them right back up. Monroe maintained a strong military and used it (or at least the threat of it) to secure American dominance of the Americas with the Monroe Doctrine.

So yes Jefferson and the DRs initially opposed a strong military, but they pretty quickly changed their minds. It's important as well to realize that the first few presidents made a lot of mistakes. They were new at this game and they had a steep learning curve. In reality the founding fathers were not particularly great presidents. They were fantastic thinkers, legislators, theorists, philosophers, motivators...but when it came to being executors....they left a little to be desired sometimes.

-- I disagree with your conclusion that there is no question that the founding fathers would be Republicans/ Tea Partiers if alive today.

Your disagreement is noted and I respectfully disagree with your disagreement.

midcan...I am getting to you. I promise.