Did the Founders want a weak central government?

[boedicca]

How much did we pay in Gasoline Taxes? Considering miles driven, it's at least a $25B.

Looks to me like drivers got shorted by 2/3 what is owed for building and maintaining our inadequate highway system.

You don't know the half of it.

About 20% of federal fuel taxes, meant to build and maintain roads and bridges, are siphoned off to support urban mass transit schemes.

Isn't that the way with most taxes?

The justification for passing them receives only a fraction of the funding - while the bulk goes to bureaucracy, unrelated programs, and social engineering objectives.

And the dim bulbs still believe that the ObamaCare funding will be used for health care.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, I haven't seen where highway projects have sparked mass protests.... mainly because anyone with a brain gets it as to to what the benefits are to the nation as a whole.

All these other Utopian schemes such as wealth transfers, dictating diets, dictating that we all buy health insurance, that we do this or do that is quite another thing. Is the usurpation of individual responsibility and the imposition of collectivism.

Believe it or not, there is a huge difference.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Freedom means the freedom to have Big Macs everyday and die of a heart attack at 52.

Like it or not, that is freedom.

 

[Immanuel]

Weak?

No. They had the Articles of Confederation and could have stayed with that if they wanted a weak government. They met initially to fix the Articles because they knew that the Articles had serious flaws.

Dude makes a good point in this thread though. The Founders were not some homogeneous group think. They had differing opinions on almost any topic that came up during the day, so it isn't really possible to talk about the opinion of that group as a whole. That's part of the reason that the whole "Original Intent" agrument is typically bunk.

But one thing is clear: They knew the Articles, which provided a very weak central government, needed work.

I think the question is designed to address the very often heard assertion from certain circles that the founders never intended our federal government to have this much power, which translates into asserting that they intended the federal government to be weak. Which even goes as far as to get serious arguments, nowadays, from many, that the states have the right to secede.

I don't agree with your conclusion that states that it translated into asserting that they intended the federal government to be weak. I have always understood it, that they intended the federal government to be limited and controlled... in my understanding that does not necessarily translate to weak.

Immie

 

[Vast LWC]

Personally I'm just shocked that Dude posted something at the beginning of the thread that I had to give him rep for...

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Weak?

No. They had the Articles of Confederation and could have stayed with that if they wanted a weak government. They met initially to fix the Articles because they knew that the Articles had serious flaws.

Dude makes a good point in this thread though. The Founders were not some homogeneous group think. They had differing opinions on almost any topic that came up during the day, so it isn't really possible to talk about the opinion of that group as a whole. That's part of the reason that the whole "Original Intent" agrument is typically bunk.

But one thing is clear: They knew the Articles, which provided a very weak central government, needed work.

Somewhat agree, to the point where the original intent was made beyond clear, when spelled out in clear concise English, in the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers....At that point the original intent argument is pretty rock-solid.

I'm willing to concede that there were most certainly points they agreed on. In that case, I'm willing to give the Original Intent argument the time of day.

When you have to pick and choose which Founder to support in order to win an argument though, Original Intent shouldn't be brought into the picture.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Freedom means the freedom to have Big Macs everyday and die of a heart attack at 52.

Like it or not, that is freedom.

WTF? Where in the health care bill does it state I can no longer eat big macs?

 

[Immanuel]

Freedom means the freedom to have Big Macs everyday and die of a heart attack at 52.

Like it or not, that is freedom.

WTF? Where in the health care bill does it state I can no longer eat big macs?

You haven't heard? That comes in HCR II.

It is one of those "sections to be named later" along with Universal Healthcare.

Immie

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Founders wanted to regulate all the banks and make people buy Health insurance

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The Founders wanted to regulate all the banks and make people buy Health insurance

The Founders didn't just regulate banking, they established a National Bank and fixed the value of gold


The Founders wouldn't have known of health insurance, since it didn't really exist at the time. There was very little health care, and what little did exist was typically not costly.

Compulsory health insurance, however, is not a new idea. The first President to support it was Republican Theodore Roosevelt.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Founders wanted to regulate all the banks and make people buy Health insurance

The Founders didn't just regulate banking, they established a National Bank and fixed the value of gold


The Founders wouldn't have known of health insurance, since it didn't really exist at the time. There was very little health care, and what little did exist was typically not costly.

Compulsory health insurance, however, is not a new idea. The first President to support it was Republican Theodore Roosevelt.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7zfnbdyAW8]YouTube - Sean Penn/Jeff Spicoli - You dick![/ame]

 

[Avatar4321]

There is a difference between Strong v. Weak government. And limited v totalitarian.

The government was designed specifically to be strong in the areas where it was given power to govern. In all other areas, the Government was to have no say and should have no say.

The problem is there are disputes on whats a strong government and whats an overintrusive government.

 

[Big Fitz]

Both Federalists and Anti-Federalists wanted uniformity at the federal level. After that, they were different on how MUCH government existed at that federal level. The Articles of Confederation left too much power left to the states that caused problems. It was too weak and chaotic.

Conversely, federalists, seeing our nation today would thing we've gone mad with it and given far too much over to the federal government for the sake of laziness.

 

[DiamondDave]

The Founders wanted to regulate all the banks and make people buy Health insurance

The Founders didn't just regulate banking, they established a National Bank and fixed the value of gold


The Founders wouldn't have known of health insurance, since it didn't really exist at the time. There was very little health care, and what little did exist was typically not costly.

Compulsory health insurance, however, is not a new idea. The first President to support it was Republican Theodore Roosevelt.

And even though there are many things t LIKE Teddy for... that stance by him shows that even Teddy can be wrong

 

[Oddball]

The Founders wanted to regulate all the banks and make people buy Health insurance

The Founders didn't just regulate banking, they established a National Bank and fixed the value of gold


The Founders wouldn't have known of health insurance, since it didn't really exist at the time. There was very little health care, and what little did exist was typically not costly.

Compulsory health insurance, however, is not a new idea. The first President to support it was Republican Theodore Roosevelt.

Federalist Alexander Hamilton established a national bank, and Andy Jackson abolished it. Also, Teddy Roosevelt was the prototype neoconservative.

Like I said, your rank ignorance of American history has been evident since your OP.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why should we care what the Founders wanted? They didn't care what the British monarchy wanted.

If you want to follow the founders' example, stop thinking that what guys wanted a couple centuries ago should dictate what you want now.

 

[Meister]

Why should we care what the Founders wanted? They didn't care what the British monarchy wanted.

If you want to follow the founders' example, stop thinking that what guys wanted a couple centuries ago should dictate what you want now.

What the Founding Fathers wanted was us to be the most prolific nation in the history of the world, and it worked.
Seems now the left wants us to step down from that success, and get in line with mediocrity as the rest of the world.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why should we care what the Founders wanted? They didn't care what the British monarchy wanted.

If you want to follow the founders' example, stop thinking that what guys wanted a couple centuries ago should dictate what you want now.

What the Founding Fathers wanted was us to be the most prolific nation in the history of the world, and it worked.
Seems now the left wants us to step down from that success, and get in line with mediocrity as the rest of the world.

Says who? Prolific? What does that even mean?

If the founders were alive today they'd be laughing their asses off at all the people who treat them like gods and their constitution like a Bible.

 

[Gunny]

If you answered "YES", the please explain why they did not keep the Articles of Confederation, which was a form of government with weak central authority and most of the real power still resting with the states.

Bullshit argument. The Articles of Confederation were superceded by the US Constitution which clearly states any powers not specified in the Constitution rest with the states.

 

[ihopehefails]

If you answered "YES", the please explain why they did not keep the Articles of Confederation, which was a form of government with weak central authority and most of the real power still resting with the states.

First of all the constitution barely passed most state legislatures and second of all most of the supporters of the constitution knew that the articles of confederation just wasn't doing what was needed in order to handle international issues well. They created the federal government to handle those matters which is why they only gave it a few powers and left the rest with the states.