The U.S. Constitution

[eflatminor]

As an anti-federalist my preference is for the Articles of Confederation.

Had they known back then just how obscene the attempts to justify tyranny through the commerce and welfare clauses would be, I suspect the anti-federalists would have won the day. I guess they thought enumerating powers and making those limitations crystal clear with the 10th amendment would ensure we remain free. Suckers.

 

[oldfart]

Just three comments:

1. I follow Lincoln in the analysis that the Union predates the Constitution. This is supported textually in the Preamble ("to form a more perfect union" presupposes the prior existence of a union) and by history. The colonies that sent representatives to the First and Second Continental Congresses were not independent states. In fact they formed the Union in order to achieve independence.

A corollary of this is that the Union is perpetual. This was made explicit in the Articles of Confederation to which each state subscribed. For a detailed argument against the false doctrines of nullification and right of succession, just read Lincoln's First Inaugural Address.

2. The Constitution has been a flawed document. The original compromise over slavery eventually led to a terrible civil war. The compromises between large and small states created distortions in the electoral college system and the makeup of the Senate which are problematic to this day. The problem is so imbedded that not even a constitutional amendment can cure the problem. (Brownie points to anyone who knows why!)

3. The Constitution forms a part, but not the whole, of the organic law of the United States. In enumerating that basic law we should add the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the most prominent Supreme Court rulings regarding individual rights and the interpretation of the Constitution, and the traditions which have grown up around the Constitution. For example, the Constitution allows Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (which I believe has never been used) and to set the number of Justices (which since FDR's attempt by common consent should not be utilized to "pack" the Court).

 

[Twofox]

the framers were probably correct in their caution of creating a democracy.

They did no such thing. They created a constitutional republic, not a democracy. There is a difference, and most people don't get that.

Beyond that, someone mentioned amendments. Apparently there have been amendnments on the table for some time, but congress refuses to call a convention. I've been looking for it again, and can't find it. IF anyone knows what I'm talking about, I'd appreciate hearing.

At any rate, we could fix some issues by amendments, such as limiting congressional tenure, balanced budget (except in emergencies), etc. My wife hate the electoral college, and I'm starting to lean that direction as well. Although popular vote alone has it's issues, but we'd all have a voice then, insteead of 5 states calling the election this year.

Edit: Nevermind, I found it here: http://foavc.org/

 

[JWBooth]

As an anti-federalist my preference is for the Articles of Confederation.

Had they known back then just how obscene the attempts to justify tyranny through the commerce and welfare clauses would be, I suspect the anti-federalists would have won the day. I guess they thought enumerating powers and making those limitations crystal clear with the 10th amendment would ensure we remain free. Suckers.

They made every possible attempt to alert people to the dangers inherent in the new government.

 

[regent]

the framers were probably correct in their caution of creating a democracy.

They did no such thing. They created a constitutional republic, not a democracy. There is a difference, and most people don't get that.

Beyond that, someone mentioned amendments. Apparently there have been amendnments on the table for some time, but congress refuses to call a convention. I've been looking for it again, and can't find it. IF anyone knows what I'm talking about, I'd appreciate hearing.

At any rate, we could fix some issues by amendments, such as limiting congressional tenure, balanced budget (except in emergencies), etc. My wife hate the electoral college, and I'm starting to lean that direction as well. Although popular vote alone has it's issues, but we'd all have a voice then, insteead of 5 states calling the election this year.

Edit: Nevermind, I found it here: Friends Of the Article V Convention

States had the democracy, some states allowed people with property to vote. As time went by America became more democratic and today we are a democratic-republic. The constitutional guarantee of a republican form of govenment to states simply means that states cannot have a king, dictatorship or other, and does not apply to the nation. The Court has traditionally avoided those types of cases declaring it to be political.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

*225 years ago today, on September 17, 1787, thirty-nine of our Founding Fathers signed the United States Constitution with the hope of providing all citizens the right to life, liberty, freedom, and prosperity. Seventeen months later, it would be fully ratified and became the supreme law of the land. It created the most free, most prosperous, most productive, most creative, most innovative, most generous nation the world has ever known.

In my opinion, somewhere along the way, I think many, maybe most, Americans have lost sight of what the Founders intended to accomplish with that amazing document. And if America is to be restored to its former greatness, that intent must be relearned and understood again.

In a nutshell:

1. The Constitution was intended to recognize and protect our unlienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

2. The Constitution was intended to provide a system within which the various states could function as one united nation and to regulate those processes and resources that the states would of necessity share.

3. The Constitution was intended to allow the states to organize and implement their own social contract and laws to enforce it without interference from the federal government so long as one state did not interfere with another.

This is my opinion. Do you have a different point of view?

The corruption is not because the document is wrong or flawed it is because the Government ignores or fabricates powers not granted. The Supreme Court is also guilty of this.

 

[Swagger]

*225 years ago today, on September 17, 1787, thirty-nine of our Founding Fathers signed the United States Constitution with the hope of providing all citizens the right to life, liberty, freedom, and prosperity. Seventeen months later, it would be fully ratified and became the supreme law of the land. It created the most free, most prosperous, most productive, most creative, most innovative, most generous nation the world has ever known.

In my opinion, somewhere along the way, I think many, maybe most, Americans have lost sight of what the Founders intended to accomplish with that amazing document. And if America is to be restored to its former greatness, that intent must be relearned and understood again.

In a nutshell:

1. The Constitution was intended to recognize and protect our unlienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

2. The Constitution was intended to provide a system within which the various states could function as one united nation and to regulate those processes and resources that the states would of necessity share.

3. The Constitution was intended to allow the states to organize and implement their own social contract and laws to enforce it without interference from the federal government so long as one state did not interfere with another.

This is my opinion. Do you have a different point of view?

The corruption is not because the document is wrong or flawed it is because the Government ignores or fabricates powers not granted. The Supreme Court is also guilty of this.

Do you think such an entity (an amalgamation of the branches of state you've listed) could be construed as a reincarnation of the monarchy the revolutionaries/Founding Fathers were trying to escape from?

 

[Foxfyre]

As an anti-federalist my preference is for the Articles of Confederation.

Had they known back then just how obscene the attempts to justify tyranny through the commerce and welfare clauses would be, I suspect the anti-federalists would have won the day. I guess they thought enumerating powers and making those limitations crystal clear with the 10th amendment would ensure we remain free. Suckers.

I agree. As wise and as ahead of their times as they were, the Founders simply could not fathom a value system as held by some in modern day times. And they did not allow for how the original intent would be twisted and rewritten by politicians and by courts. They, to a man, rejected any form of the welfare state at the federal level--they were well aware of the dangers of that--but they naively assumed that future governments would understand that the Constitution does not allow it. They did not count on a corruption of their intent with a redefinition of the general welfare clause that has resulted in a 16 trillion dollar debt that is growing at the rate of 5.5 billion dollars per day at this time.

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution provides a framework for which our Government operates. It also provides individual freedoms to protect the people from the Government

It was never intended to be an end in itself. The Constitution is not a cookbook telling you what recepies you can make and what ingredients you can use. It is a kitchen that allows each succeeding generation to decide what will be cooked

 

[JWBooth]

I agree. As wise and as ahead of their times as they were, the Founders simply could not fathom a value system as held by some in modern day times. And they did not allow for how the original intent would be twisted and rewritten by politicians and by courts. They, to a man, rejected any form of the welfare state at the federal level--they were well aware of the dangers of that--but they naively assumed that future governments would understand that the Constitution does not allow it. They did not count on a corruption of their intent with a redefinition of the general welfare clause that has resulted in a 16 trillion dollar debt that is growing at the rate of 5.5 billion dollars per day at this time.

Were that true, then they would have to be the biggest collection of the stupidest smart guys that ever lived. These were all highly educated men, aware of the history of states and the corrupt nature of man. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree. As wise and as ahead of their times as they were, the Founders simply could not fathom a value system as held by some in modern day times. And they did not allow for how the original intent would be twisted and rewritten by politicians and by courts. They, to a man, rejected any form of the welfare state at the federal level--they were well aware of the dangers of that--but they naively assumed that future governments would understand that the Constitution does not allow it. They did not count on a corruption of their intent with a redefinition of the general welfare clause that has resulted in a 16 trillion dollar debt that is growing at the rate of 5.5 billion dollars per day at this time.

Were that true, then they would have to be the biggest collection of the stupidest smart guys that ever lived. These were all highly educated men, aware of the history of states and the corrupt nature of man. There is nothing new under the sun.

They hoped that given the opportunity to live free, Americans would cherish and protect that freedom and would resist those who would take it from them. They did not anticipate the slow incremental creep of the welfare state; they did not anticipate career politicians who would be willing to corrupt the Constitution to enrich themselves. Stupid no. But naive? Perhaps in that sense yes.

 

[Swagger]

Here's a thought re. the question of welfare.

Do you think that the the Founding Fathers wanted to distance themselves from reliance on others?

Before the Revolution the Thirteen Colonies' economy relied, for a great part, on the markets in Great Britain and Europe. Pelts, tobacco and other commodities found in the New World commanded high prices in the European markets. After the Revolution they were blockaded by the Royal Navy and their northern neighbour was still a hostile force, which they would've anticipated. Thus they were denied a source of income. Taking that into account, would it be unreasonable to assume that they wanted to foster a sense of self-reliance that would manifest itself in the general populace, and among future generations of Americans?

 

[Foxfyre]

Here's a thought re. the question of welfare.

Do you think that the the Founding Fathers wanted to distance themselves from reliance on others?

Before the Revolution the Thirteen Colonies' economy relied, for a great part, on the markets in Great Britain and Europe. Pelts, tobacco and other commodities found in the New World commanded high prices in the European markets. After the Revolution they were blockaded by the Royal Navy and their northern neighbour was still a hostile force, which they would've anticipated. Thus they were denied a source of income. Taking that into account, would it be unreasonable to assume that they wanted to foster a sense of self-reliance that would manifest itself in the general populace, and among future generations of Americans?

No, they did not intend to distance themselves from reliance on others. But they were all students of John Locke and the other visionary thnkers of the 17th and 18th centuries and they had collectively adopted an understanding that only when we are masters of our own fate can we truly be free. And while we benefit each other by looking to our own intersts, no man is truly free if he is unwillingly required to serve another. They were fully aware of how the federal government practicing any form of altruism would violate the inalienable rights of the people to use and allocate their own property.

 

[rightwinger]

Here's a thought re. the question of welfare.

Do you think that the the Founding Fathers wanted to distance themselves from reliance on others?

Before the Revolution the Thirteen Colonies' economy relied, for a great part, on the markets in Great Britain and Europe. Pelts, tobacco and other commodities found in the New World commanded high prices in the European markets. After the Revolution they were blockaded by the Royal Navy and their northern neighbour was still a hostile force, which they would've anticipated. Thus they were denied a source of income. Taking that into account, would it be unreasonable to assume that they wanted to foster a sense of self-reliance that would manifest itself in the general populace, and among future generations of Americans?

No, they did not intend to distance themselves from reliance on others. But they were all students of John Locke and the other visionary thnkers of the 17th and 18th centuries and they had collectively adopted an understanding that only when we are masters of our own fate can we truly be free. And while we benefit each other by looking to our own intersts, no man is truly free if he is unwillingly required to serve another. They were fully aware of how the federal government practicing any form of altruism would violate the inalienable rights of the people to use and allocate their own property.

No man is truly free if he is unwillinglly required to serve another?

And yet, they openly endorsed slavery?

 

[Foxfyre]

Here's a thought re. the question of welfare.

Do you think that the the Founding Fathers wanted to distance themselves from reliance on others?

Before the Revolution the Thirteen Colonies' economy relied, for a great part, on the markets in Great Britain and Europe. Pelts, tobacco and other commodities found in the New World commanded high prices in the European markets. After the Revolution they were blockaded by the Royal Navy and their northern neighbour was still a hostile force, which they would've anticipated. Thus they were denied a source of income. Taking that into account, would it be unreasonable to assume that they wanted to foster a sense of self-reliance that would manifest itself in the general populace, and among future generations of Americans?

No, they did not intend to distance themselves from reliance on others. But they were all students of John Locke and the other visionary thnkers of the 17th and 18th centuries and they had collectively adopted an understanding that only when we are masters of our own fate can we truly be free. And while we benefit each other by looking to our own intersts, no man is truly free if he is unwillingly required to serve another. They were fully aware of how the federal government practicing any form of altruism would violate the inalienable rights of the people to use and allocate their own property.

No man is truly free if he is unwillinglly required to serve another?

And yet, they openly endorsed slavery?

No they didn't openly endorse slavery. Even the slave owners among the Founders mostly endorsed abolishing slavery and that included George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. But they also set aside the issue of slavery in order to form an enduring union of the states. That would have been impossible had they imposed requirements on the states to change their various cultures whether that of allowing slavery or endorsing theocracy or any other issues that we would find unconscionable today. They trusted a free people to work out those issues and for the most part we have done so.

 

[rightwinger]

No, they did not intend to distance themselves from reliance on others. But they were all students of John Locke and the other visionary thnkers of the 17th and 18th centuries and they had collectively adopted an understanding that only when we are masters of our own fate can we truly be free. And while we benefit each other by looking to our own intersts, no man is truly free if he is unwillingly required to serve another. They were fully aware of how the federal government practicing any form of altruism would violate the inalienable rights of the people to use and allocate their own property.

No man is truly free if he is unwillinglly required to serve another?

And yet, they openly endorsed slavery?

No they didn't openly endorse slavery. Even the slave owners among the Founders mostly endorsed abolishing slavery and that included George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. But they also set aside the issue of slavery in order to form an enduring union of the states. That would have been impossible had they imposed requirements on the states to change their various cultures whether that of allowing slavery or endorsing theocracy or any other issues that we would find unconscionable today. They trusted a free people to work out those issues and for the most part we have done so.

The document, as approved by the thirteen states had provisions for slavery

I understand, their were political ramifications that prevented the elimination of slavery in 1782, but the fact remains that any attempt to claim that they were unwillingly serving another rings hollow

 

[rightwinger]

The founding fathers did the best they could in the political climate of the times. Advocating "All men are created equal" in the 18th century was groundbreaking

However, trying to equate the needs of an 18th century impoverished America to a 21st century Superpower is foolhardy. Each generation must establish the type of government that best meets the needs of their era (within the framework of the Constitution)

Thomas Jefferson said it best..

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

 

[eflatminor]

No man is truly free if he is unwillinglly required to serve another...

Yep. Taxing a man's labor and redistributing the fruits of that labor to others is theft at a minimum, economic slavery at it's heart. I stand against slavery. You?

 

[rightwinger]

No man is truly free if he is unwillinglly required to serve another...

Yep. Taxing a man's labor and redistributing the fruits of that labor to others is theft at a minimum, economic slavery at it's heart. I stand against slavery. You?

A slave has no choice

Your constitutionally elected representatives decide the tax rates

 

[eflatminor]

No man is truly free if he is unwillinglly required to serve another...

Yep. Taxing a man's labor and redistributing the fruits of that labor to others is theft at a minimum, economic slavery at it's heart. I stand against slavery. You?

A slave has no choice

Your constitutionally elected representatives decide the tax rates

Not long ago, constitutionally elected representatives decided slavery was acceptable too. Today, we have no choice but to labor on behalf of others. If we refuse, we go to jail. In other words, we have no choice. Sounds like slavery.