Early Americans Would Have Rejected the U.S. Government

We have lots of things the constitution never contemplated.
I think the founders contemplated what we're witnessing and set up the constitution to help prevent it.
"Help prevent" being key. Had they really wanted to stop/prevent miscreants from acting out they would have inserted punishment for the acting out. But, they obviously didn't think breaking rules was tantamount to crime.
I'm pretty sure they knew that there would be abuse and disregarding of the rules- that's human nature. Rule breaking without repercussion invites rule breaking. I think, at least Jefferson, believed that without virtuous men being elected the rules meant nothing. He was correct.
I don't think they contemplated the onslaught of pseudo intellectuals attacking the basic tenets of Liberty by intentionally being obtuse... but, they do. And thanks to the official dumbing down of the masses (Public Education) they get away with paying lip service to the rules they swear, in the affirmative, to protect and defend.... to the best of their ability- which speaks to their pseudo intellectual obtuseness.

I don't know that early Americans would have rejected the constitution if they had had the vision of the early bearers of Liberty as a premise for living- it seems many didn't side with the founders beliefs and actually wanted a monarchy. It was proposed to Washington that he be a King. He rejected the idea. But, not everyone wanted to be free, as in unencumbered by- they just didn't like a King in Britain telling the colonist how to conduct business (their livelihood) by some having "official" preferential treatment over others, subject to the representatives of the King whims - the edict of man- so, they got enough people on board to agree to a "rule of law" for governing and agreed to the constitution, with the explicit calling out of areas where the new gov't could NOT wield the heavy hand of "official" bullshit to justify interfering in individual lives to excuse the edict of man actions to favor one over another "officially".
 
Which early Americans? Most of them were used to living under a monarchy with different rules for every race and class of people. It is certain those who held wealth and position would not like that it is way more complicated to loot the earth and enslave the people nowadays.

It's very complicated to enslave people these days. The hardware is prohibitively expensive.

View attachment 336713
How much ?
 
I think "secret meeting" is being misconstrued. That's what happens today- although, ironically, everyone knows it happens, as a SOP, prior to a vote on the floor.
 
The Founders ran the writing of the Constitution in as much secrecy as they could. There was also welfare programs administered by States and private parties.
 
People were so worried about a strong central government that the first documents for our new nation were the articles on confederation. They gave essentially no powers to the newly formed federal government.

The Articles of Confederation were written for the war. Basically, it instructs anyone who can read the document to take charge and do what ever they can to help in the war effort.
 
this is just some bullshit propaganda cause the problem is the people in government that keep getting farther from the constitution and not the constitution itself,,,

and we all know thats the democrat and republican partys.
Okay, so what are we going to do to get it back to what you believe is how it is the government is supposed to work???
 
Again our best lesson in History is that we don't learn from it-
This is a pretty good article but I don't agree with the summary, which, BTW, is at the end of the article.
Even though most Americans are obviously unhappy with the federal government, many of them don’t question the structure of the government itself. Their ire is directed toward officials, not the governmental structure that such officials manage. They are satisfied with how the federal government is structured and just want “better people” managing it.

The summary of the article is at the beginning, and it is a correct analysis; but his example of (federal) government structure is flawed. He is only describing the executive security departments as being absurdities relative to the founding era, because there was no way to do the security departments listed, because of the lack of information, man power, and financing; but the mission that justifies the departments is defined in the Preamble.

He is correct the erroneous structure is what has lead the American society to the social chaos we endure, but again, he failed to describe the erroneous structure and the corrective adjustments. Is he suggesting that if we eliminate those security departments that that will get the society back on track to what ever it is he believes is the correct approach to tranquility??? What is he demanding we do?
 
this is just some bullshit propaganda cause the problem is the people in government that keep getting farther from the constitution and not the constitution itself,,,

and we all know thats the democrat and republican partys.
Okay, so what are we going to do to get it back to what you believe is how it is the government is supposed to work???
I dont answer stupid questions from trolls
 
I think the founders contemplated what we're witnessing and set up the constitution to help prevent it.
With the evolution of legal and communications technology that we have now, the founders would recognize the structural problems and solutions that Mr. Hornburger cannot describe. The structural problems lead the politicians to the chaos in Washington, and that trickles down and causes the social chaos we endure.

"Help prevent" being key. Had they really wanted to stop/prevent miscreants from acting out they would have inserted punishment for the acting out. But, they obviously didn't think breaking rules was tantamount to crime. I'm pretty sure they knew that there would be abuse and disregarding of the rules- that's human nature. Rule breaking without repercussion invites rule breaking. I think, at least Jefferson, believed that without virtuous men being elected the rules meant nothing. He was correct.
And that is a fairly decent description of the inadequacy of the separation of powers, and checks and balances, that are hard wired to the structure of government.

I don't think they contemplated the onslaught of pseudo intellectuals attacking the basic tenets of Liberty by intentionally being obtuse... but, they do. And thanks to the official dumbing down of the masses (Public Education) they get away with paying lip service to the rules they swear, in the affirmative, to protect and defend.... to the best of their ability- which speaks to their pseudo intellectual obtuseness.
The oath of office is an unnecessary aspect that was added to appease the naive.
 
I don't agree with Hornberger on a lot of stuff- but, I do appreciate his effort at offering food for thought- there is not near enough of it-
 
The structural problems lead the politicians to the chaos in Washington, and that trickles down and causes the social chaos we endure.
No. The lack of virtue and an ill perceived thought of Honor is what leads politicians to corruption- they are splineless Empty Suits who believe they are special- they ain't. They are merely servants-
 
Your opinion- none the less it is swearing in the affirmative, with their hand where? I assure you I'm not naive-
You're pretty naive, if you think there is a god that is going to adjudicate the corruption, or the perpetrators. There is no god to answer any prayers, if there were it would have done something about 9/11. Do you realize how many people were thinking, if not praying??? No miracle occurred - why not. Why did we have to send an army, and let some die in the fight?

No. The lack of virtue and an ill perceived thought of Honor is what leads politicians to corruption- they are splineless Empty Suits who believe they are special- they ain't. They are merely servants-
Gee whiz - that ought make a difference.
So, why did the founders seem to believe that "checks and balances" were necessary?
 
Again our best lesson in History is that we don't learn from it-

This is a pretty good article but I don't agree with the summary, which, BTW, is at the end of the article.


Even though most Americans are obviously unhappy with the federal government, many of them don’t question the structure of the government itself. Their ire is directed toward officials, not the governmental structure that such officials manage. They are satisfied with how the federal government is structured and just want “better people” managing it.
very true
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top