Did the Founders want a weak central government?

[CrusaderFrank]

Your comments above reveal why the reactionaries far, far to the right are so few in number and are do desperately attempting to subvert the Tea Party, then the GOP. It's a fact I know the Constitution, its creation, its history, its founders, and it purpose far better than you, Frank. You are trapped in a world that does not want to change, and you and those like you want to impose your depraved nature on the rest of us.

The American population is darker, more literate, technologically advanced, and uninterested in the dead old past to them of race, dual federalism, and home rule. They look at your side, Frank, as weird, and that is why your numbers are so lacking in color, youth to thirty somethings, and women. Look at the next rally, and you will see what I mean.

You see, your chance was over before you ever were born.

Jake, you are in Lala-land. The Framers left us with an Amendment process to make changes as we developed as a civilization. Anyone who had more that a cursory understand of the document would have known that. I fear the Constitution is like the Footnotes you've still yet to site me in "Blacklisted" just unread.

Please pick any part of the Constitution and enlighten me as to what difference it makes that we are "darker, more literate, technologically advanced" (you're not including yourself in the "literate" part, are you?)

 

[Yurt]

What you believe is unimportant.

How can I be trolling when you troll that I am a liberal when I am not? I never doubted that you were smart enough to not support Palin, and any sane person knows that Obama was born in Hawaii.

See, that is why I want to know why you are trolling. I did catch you on youtube.

]

unfortunately for you, i'm not the only one who believes you're trolling and are a liberal trying to pass himjself off as a republican...

but you're right, it doesn't matter, because you can troll all day and night regardless of anyone's opinion....

if you truly wanted to push your political agenda and convince those on the right that their way is wrong, you would do so in a way that doesn't convince 99% of those on the right that you're a liberal...your words convict you...you have the option to change that, but you won't and that is because you're trollin

 

[JakeStarkey]

Frank, you truly do not understand the Founders, American history, the role of the Constitution, its history, and how the law has developed in our wonderful country. I have the Constitution besides my computer at home and at work. I read in it at least once a day. Only the Bible do I read more than the Constitution.

Your America is over. Get used to it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, you truly do not understand the Founders, American history, the role of the Constitution, its history, and how the law has developed in our wonderful country. I have the Constitution besides my computer at home and at work. I read in it at least once a day. Only the Bible do I read more than the Constitution.

Your America is over. Get used to it.

The "law" and the Amendment process has been perverted by Progressives since FDR who used SCOTUS judges to usurp the process.

Have a grown up read the Constitution to you, someone besides Larry Tribe.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'll be waiting for weeks for Jake to show how the fact that we have computers necessitated a rewrite to the Constitution

 

[Yurt]

Frank, you truly do not understand the Founders, American history, the role of the Constitution, its history, and how the law has developed in our wonderful country. I have the Constitution besides my computer at home and at work. I read in it at least once a day. Only the Bible do I read more than the Constitution.

Your America is over. Get used to it.

and jim bakker read the bible everyday....

 

[JakeStarkey]

And you should remember that the devils knew Jesus and trembled in fear.

Frank has very little comprehension of the matters he discusses.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What you believe is unimportant.

How can I be trolling when you troll that I am a liberal when I am not? I never doubted that you were smart enough to not support Palin, and any sane person knows that Obama was born in Hawaii.

See, that is why I want to know why you are trolling. I did catch you on youtube.

]

unfortunately for you, i'm not the only one who believes you're trolling and are a liberal trying to pass himjself off as a republican...

but you're right, it doesn't matter, because you can troll all day and night regardless of anyone's opinion....

if you truly wanted to push your political agenda and convince those on the right that their way is wrong, you would do so in a way that doesn't convince 99% of those on the right that you're a liberal...your words convict you...you have the option to change that, but you won't and that is because you're trollin

You see, you think the far right is mainstream, and it is not. To tell you the truth then is not trolling. And what the far right wacks think of me is immaterial, and what you think of me is immaterial. Revealing your goofiness does not make me a troll, boxxy.

 

[Yurt]

What you believe is unimportant.

How can I be trolling when you troll that I am a liberal when I am not? I never doubted that you were smart enough to not support Palin, and any sane person knows that Obama was born in Hawaii.

See, that is why I want to know why you are trolling. I did catch you on youtube.

]

unfortunately for you, i'm not the only one who believes you're trolling and are a liberal trying to pass himjself off as a republican...

but you're right, it doesn't matter, because you can troll all day and night regardless of anyone's opinion....

if you truly wanted to push your political agenda and convince those on the right that their way is wrong, you would do so in a way that doesn't convince 99% of those on the right that you're a liberal...your words convict you...you have the option to change that, but you won't and that is because you're trollin

You see, you think the far right is mainstream, and it is not. To tell you the truth then is not trolling. And what the far right wacks think of me is immaterial, and what you think of me is immaterial. Revealing your goofiness does not make me a troll, boxxy.

huh? i never said the far right is mainstream....

you're a troll jake and your lies continue to prove it....

 

[JakeStarkey]

You can't prove one lie, boxxy. I believe in smaller government, I believe in less taxes, I believe that health care companies violated their public trust, I believe welfare reform needs to turn welfare recipients into taxpayers, I believe that Mitt Romney would be a great president. I believe that if you really believe that I am a liberal, then you must be hull down on the right so that only your eyes are showing above the horizon.

Why can't you get we can't do a thing about how the left, the dems, and the libs think? We need to reform our own party so that it more truly reflects the will of the people. When Boehner and McConnell state that "the people have spoken", they are lying through their teeth; they are only speaking for their big money donors, not you and me. They don't care about you and me. Romney, I believe, truly does.

Slink off if you don't like it.

 

[editec]

They wanted to most bang for the buck.

Bang = effective governance
Buck = the amount of freedom they'd have to give up.

They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.

So they went with a stronger central government and that worked fairly well, but as we can all see, the power of the central government has gorwn stronger over time.

 

[Intense]

They wanted to most bang for the buck.

Bang = effective governance
Buck = the amount of freedom they'd have to give up.

They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.

So they went with a stronger central government and that worked fairly well, but as we can all see, the power of the central government has gorwn stronger over time.

They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.

What kind of kool aid are you drinking?????

The system they tried was Federalism, you Jack Ass.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

They wanted to most bang for the buck.

Bang = effective governance
Buck = the amount of freedom they'd have to give up.

They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.

So they went with a stronger central government and that worked fairly well, but as we can all see, the power of the central government has gorwn stronger over time.

They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.

What kind of kool aid are you drinking?????

The system they tried was Federalism, you Jack Ass.

He is talking about the Articles, which was more of an alliance of equal states or a Confederacy than a Federalist system. And the Articles were a failure. A necessary failure, as the Founders would have almost certainly rejected the Constitution flat out following the Revolutionary War. It was only after the Articles failed that the Founders realized you needed a stronger Federal government.

That's why this question is a bit on the silly side. Of course they wanted a strong central government. They'd tried a weak central government and it outright failed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They wanted to most bang for the buck.

Bang = effective governance
Buck = the amount of freedom they'd have to give up.

They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.

So they went with a stronger central government and that worked fairly well, but as we can all see, the power of the central government has gorwn stronger over time.

They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.

What kind of kool aid are you drinking?????

The system they tried was Federalism, you Jack Ass.

The Articles of Confederation set up a confederated government of dual federalism, not the co-operative federalism into which our modern government has evolved.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Limited and enumerated powers that were specifically granted along with the stipulation that those powers not granted to the fed are reserved for the states and individuals.... while not 'weak' the founders clearly sought to limit the powers of the fed... unlike what left wingers believe

Yet ironically in the other thread you are arguing that the federal government has the power to infringe on or take away my right to travel, despite there being no such enumerated power in the Constitution.

Air travel is interstate commerce, You may want to reread what powers the Fed was granted.

 

[antagon]

They wanted to most bang for the buck.

Bang = effective governance
Buck = the amount of freedom they'd have to give up.

They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.

So they went with a stronger central government and that worked fairly well, but as we can all see, the power of the central government has gorwn stronger over time.

They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.

What kind of kool aid are you drinking?????

The system they tried was Federalism, you Jack Ass.

clearly the man is referring to the articles of confederacy experiment.

 

[Intense]

They wanted to most bang for the buck.

Bang = effective governance
Buck = the amount of freedom they'd have to give up.

They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.

So they went with a stronger central government and that worked fairly well, but as we can all see, the power of the central government has gorwn stronger over time.

They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.

What kind of kool aid are you drinking?????

The system they tried was Federalism, you Jack Ass.

clearly the man is referring to the articles of confederacy experiment.

Our form of Federalism is what he referred to. Federalism is anti Strong Centralized Authority, plain and simple. Totalitarianism, is the threat, Tyranny. The defense, Enumerated Co-Equal distribution of Powers, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Federal, State, and Local. Each with It's sphere of influence and authority. Checks and balances. Centralized one size fits all is the last thing we need. It is the Tyrant's Perfect Storm. Clearly the man is implying that State's Right's died with the Confederacy.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Clearly the man is implying that State's Right's died with the Confederacy.

It kinda did. That's why its a shame that the South made a conscious choice to make the stand for State's Rights over the issue of Slavery.

If the South had abolished Slavery, and then decided to leave the Union they almost certainly would have succeeded in their cause. Slavery became an issue that kept the North in the War and the Europeans out of it.

 

[Intense]

They wanted to most bang for the buck.

Bang = effective governance
Buck = the amount of freedom they'd have to give up.

They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.

So they went with a stronger central government and that worked fairly well, but as we can all see, the power of the central government has gorwn stronger over time.

They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.

What kind of kool aid are you drinking?????

The system they tried was Federalism, you Jack Ass.

He is talking about the Articles, which was more of an alliance of equal states or a Confederacy than a Federalist system. And the Articles were a failure. A necessary failure, as the Founders would have almost certainly rejected the Constitution flat out following the Revolutionary War. It was only after the Articles failed that the Founders realized you needed a stronger Federal government.

That's why this question is a bit on the silly side. Of course they wanted a strong central government. They'd tried a weak central government and it outright failed.

The Federal Constitution Stated Enumerated Powers, Checks and Balances, in effect Government by the consent of the Governed. We seem to forget more than we think we know. The Articles Of Confederation did not bare a resemblance to the Confederacy, other than the Confederacy being modeled after it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Clearly the man is implying that State's Right's died with the Confederacy.

It kinda did. That's why its a shame that the South made a conscious choice to make the stand for State's Rights over the issue of Slavery.

If the South had abolished Slavery, and then decided to leave the Union they almost certainly would have succeeded in their cause. Slavery became an issue that kept the North in the War and the Europeans out of it.

The southern states had no other reason than the right to own human beings to leave the Union.