Which GOP Candidate Would The Founders Support?...

[rdean]

They would put those four on a boat and send them back to England.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Interesting take from Brion McClanahan.


I am often asked in interviews if the founding generation would recognize the modern government in Washington, D.C. I always answer yes, they would. They would recognize tyranny, the usurpation of power by the executive branch, the trampling of civil liberties and the endless wars of a government bent on empire. The several states seceded from a government like that in 1776 and they would probably advocate the same course today. Barack Obama has more power than George III ever had. That said, the next question is usually, “Well, what do we do about it and who among the current crop of presidential candidates would best adhere to the founding principles?"

The answer to the first part of that question is more complex than the answer to the second part. If Americans truly believed in limited government, then we would be following the prescription that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison made in 1798 by ignoring unconstitutional federal laws, participating in local and state government and using the powers of the states as a hedge against the general government. This is a long war that requires education and what Jefferson called “manly firmness.” Most important, the Constitution would not have been ratified had the founding generation believed that the states would become mere provinces of the general government or that what Patrick Henry called the “sweeping clauses” would be abused. The political class has to be held responsible.

As for the second part of that question, the answer is simple: Ron Paul. No one man can save the federal republic, but if the Founders, with perhaps an exception or two, had their choice, it would be the man who has the best understanding of the original construction of the executive branch, and among the four remaining Republicans, the best understanding of the Constitution and the original intent in general. Mitt Romney has conceded he knows little about the principles of federalism (with the exception of correctly insisting that Romneycare in Massachusetts is a state issue) and defers to Paul on the Constitution; Newt Gingrich believes that federal judges should be dragged before Congress to “answer” for their decisions (News flash, Newt! Federal judges can be impeached); Rick Santorum thinks that the phrase “pursuit of happiness” is in the Constitution, or perhaps the Declaration of Independence is a governing document, I couldn’t tell by his incoherent statements to Glenn Beck. All believe that the general government should be charged with finding “solutions” to societal ills. All believe that the president is a prime minister charged with initiating legislation and have a “progressive” view of executive powers, particularly in regard to foreign policy, the antithesis of the original intent. All, that is, except Ron Paul.


Read more: Ron Paul | Which GOP candidate would the Founders support? | The Daily Caller

Is your question "Which one would they support?" or "Which one would fit in better in the 1700's?" Because in order to answer the first one, we would have to assume that the Founders also have a working knowledge of the world and its circumstances as they are NOW. Otherwise, you're actually answering the second question, and I don't think a politician perfectly suited to the 1700s is exactly what we need at the moment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is supposing the notion the founders were all of one mind. They weren't. Some were bitter rivals. Washington and Jefferson were not on speaking terms.

It's extremely naive to postulate what 18th century leaders would regard important in the 21th century as well.

At lot as changed. They wouldn't be able to own human beings for one thing.

They had one basic principle that was uncompromising for them. It's was liberty and freedom of choice.

For white male land owners, everyone else, not so much. They were just fine with only a minority of the population having full voting rights.

And the more I look around the country at what universal voting rights has wrought, the more I think the Founding Fathers knew what they were about on that subject.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They had one basic principle that was uncompromising for them. It's was liberty and freedom of choice.

For white male land owners, everyone else, not so much. They were just fine with only a minority of the population having full voting rights.

And the more I look around the country at what universal voting rights has wrought, the more I think the Founding Fathers knew what they were about on that subject.

You are talking about disenfranchising yourself, if you are talking about biased and uninformed voters.

 

[Contumacious]

Liberty, the Constitution protected slavery. It took a Civil War and the 13th Amendment to end it..

Mr. Fucktard, Sir:

Do air travelers feel like a free people when TSA agents are handling their junk?

Ask the taxpayers if they feel like free people working from January until July to pay for the massive welfare/warfare state?

Do Americans feel like free people when their rights depend upon the discretion of the bureaucrats who manage the gargantuan federal government ?

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Contumacious, I am well aware, as are many here, why you want the feds to scale back.

Now, to your deflections: sir, they are deflections, and you are still the scum that you were when I first came here.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

For white male land owners, everyone else, not so much. They were just fine with only a minority of the population having full voting rights.

And the more I look around the country at what universal voting rights has wrought, the more I think the Founding Fathers knew what they were about on that subject.

You are talking about disenfranchising yourself, if you are talking about biased and uninformed voters.

and you are a lying pile of dog shit.

 

[Full-Auto]

Contumacious, I am well aware, as are many here, why you want the feds to scale back.

Now, to your deflections: sir, they are deflections, and you are still the scum that you were when I first came here.

Deflections? You dont have the stones to address his points.

 

[Liberty]

Liberty, the Constitution protected slavery. It took a Civil War and the 13th Amendment to end it.

Yeah, the Founders believed in the institution, with some exceptions.

They believed they were ahead of their time...the amendment process was there to end it when it was socially acceptable. My point is that IF they were blatantly racist they would have included a provision in the constitution barring the constitution from ever protecting those rights. The FACT that they did not do this shows they understood that ending slavry, and suffrage were coming down the pipe of the future and wanted the newly formed United States to be able to adapt via the amendment process when the people were ready for it.

You are making material up out of tattered cloth, Liberty, the same as with FDR in another thread.

If the Founders as a whole believed "suffrage were coming" readily in the future, the Founders would not have put in the 3/5ths clause, the fugitive slave clause, and then defended the institution like fury, and so forth. You sound as silly as Sarah and Michelle on this nonsense.

More than six hundred thousand Americans would not have died, the South economically and socially devastated, and the North transformed if the Founders thought slavery "was down the pipe of the future."

You are not thinking critically here, you are making stuff up.

i don't have time to educate you about your misconceptions, all I can say is I hope you consider reading primary sources within context and be open to the contradiction that lay within in relation to your current assumption.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Contumacious, I am well aware, as are many here, why you want the feds to scale back.

Now, to your deflections: sir, they are deflections, and you are still the scum that you were when I first came here.

Deflections? You dont have the stones to address his points.

All jake has the stones to do is accuse someone of lying when he does it.

 

[Full-Auto]

Contumacious, I am well aware, as are many here, why you want the feds to scale back.

Now, to your deflections: sir, they are deflections, and you are still the scum that you were when I first came here.

Deflections? You dont have the stones to address his points.

All jake has the stones to do is accuse someone of lying when he does it.

Always talks trash and never posts up.

 

[Contumacious]

Contumacious, I am well aware, as are many here, why you want the feds to scale back.

Now, to your deflections: sir, they are deflections, and you are still the scum that you were when I first came here.

I am well aware, as are many here, why you want the feds to have unlimited powers.



Ein Volk, ein Führer, ein Reich...Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Contumacious, the age of consent laws are not going to be lowered during our lifetimes.

 

[Liberty]

Contumacious, the age of consent laws are not going to be lowered during your lifetime.

 

[Contumacious]

Contumacious, the age of consent laws are not going to be lowered during your lifetime.

stone·wall

verb /ˈstōnˌwôl/ 
stonewalled, past participle; stonewalled, past tense; stonewalling, present participle; stonewalls, 3rd person singular present

Delay or block (a request, process, or person) by refusing to answer questions or by giving evasive replies, esp. in politics

obstruct or hinder any discussion; "Nixon stonewalled the Watergate investigation"; "When she doesn't like to face a problem, she simply stonewalls"

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

stonewall = deflection in C's world.

 

[Contumacious]

stonewall = deflection in C's world.

stonewall = surrender in JS world.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

stonewall in C's dictionary = Contumacious fail

 

[The T]

Liberty, the Constitution protected slavery. It took a Civil War and the 13th Amendment to end it.

Yeah, the Founders believed in the institution, with some exceptions.

I'll take "What is the 3/5ths Compromise..." for $1,000 Alex...

Jackass

 

[rightwinger]

Liberty, the Constitution protected slavery. It took a Civil War and the 13th Amendment to end it.

Yeah, the Founders believed in the institution, with some exceptions.

I'll take "What is the 3/5ths Compromise..." for $1,000 Alex...

Jackass

It was a protection of slavery to give southern states more legislative power than they deserved