Our founding fathers were not conservative

[Paulie]

Another thread comparing today's version of liberal and conservative to the version from the 1700's???

This is why you suck, newbs.

You think this shit hasn't already been debated ad nauseum around here?

Do a search, puta.

This is how the new pups on the block learn, Paulie.

I think its just how they garner attention they were otherwise lacking in their life.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Another thread comparing today's version of liberal and conservative to the version from the 1700's???

This is why you suck, newbs.

You think this shit hasn't already been debated ad nauseum around here?

Do a search, puta.

This is how the new pups on the block learn, Paulie.

I think its just how they garner attention they were otherwise lacking in their life.

That's true also, I would guess, and they have probably been run off by bigger dogs on other threads, too.

 

[Intense]

No..it's not a "good try". The "Federalist Papers" came after the Constitution. And they were meant to convince the general public of New York that the Constitution was sound.

Good point, in part, which actually makes them more relevant, though I'd be interested how much if any change they effected in what was ratified. The Federalist Papers were written and published before the Constitution became the law of the land. You know that, right?


The Federalist Papers

Welcome to our Federalist Papers e-text. The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution.

In total, the Federalist Papers consist of 85 essays outlining how this new government would operate and why this type of government was the best choice for the United States of America. All of the essays were signed "PUBLIUS" and the actual authors of some are under dispute, but the general consensus is that Alexander Hamilton wrote 52, James Madison wrote 28, and John Jay contributed the remaining five.



The Federalist Papers remain today as an excellent reference for anyone who wants to understand the U.S. Constitution.

We have three ways to browse the Federalist Papers. Thee first two are both in numerical order. Frames make it slightly easier to flip back and forth between different pages. The third is by author.

Federalist Papers with Frames
Federalist Papers without Frames
Indices by author:
Alexander Hamilton
James Madison
John Jay

Federalist Papers

They did a great job of it huh... if only Hamilton hadn't turned out to be a real Scum Bag, we could have had a Real Republic, rather than an Oligarchy State disguised as one.

And Washington, and Adams, and Marshall, and Pickering, and Adams ad infinitum ad naeuseum. In the ear of Jefferson and Jackson we saw your limited republic committed to slavery and exploitation of the common man. And we saw Lincoln execute a pretend American country committed to your political values.

Jake, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. Your soap box is stolen, I'm here to collect sissy by.

Seriously Jake, Slavery has nothing to do with the issue of Federalist Principles. What did have to do with the bait and switch, was Hamilton stating one platform before the Ratification, and a new platform after ratification. Study Enumerated Powers, General Welfare, Judicial review, and Commerce prior to and then after. Federalism by Our design was to be a light touch, with both the States and the Federal Government having a role, jurisdiction, and limits to power. That is what was sold, that is not what we ended up with. We have a good system Jake, there are abuses in it, it could be better. I don't care what the issue is, the fact that a 5-4 split decision in the Court could change any aspect of law, regardless of it being for the Right or Left, leaves us in a bad place Jake. With the best intentions it is still soft tyranny, with the worst intentions, despotism. Why have a Congress at all then? If it's only a mask? To fill in the details, to make the language so meaningless anything can be interpreted from it to serve any end? When the Feds, by power of the Commerce Clause can tell you what you can and cannot grow in your garden for personal use, that in itself is an abuse of authority. When congress can outlaw an incandescent light5 bulb, that is an abuse of power.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Another thread comparing today's version of liberal and conservative to the version from the 1700's???

This is why you suck, newbs.

You think this shit hasn't already been debated ad nauseum around here?

Do a search, puta.

This is how the new pups on the block learn, Paulie.

A new pup? You've been here just over a year your just as new as the rest of us are pup.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Jake, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. Your soap box is stolen, I'm here to collect sissy by.

Psst...
Don't feed the troll.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, Intense, your soap box just collapsed. Your Republic does not exist except in your mind. I understand the Constitution sufficiently, have studied it for decades, understand the pro and con, and have concluded some time ago that you guys are somewhere around the corner sharing the bong. That's OK, but you are not correct.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Another thread comparing today's version of liberal and conservative to the version from the 1700's???

This is why you suck, newbs.

You think this shit hasn't already been debated ad nauseum around here?

Do a search, puta.

This is how the new pups on the block learn, Paulie.

A new pup? You've been here just over a year your just as new as the rest of us are pup.

I wasn't referring to you at all, bigreb, but now that you mention it, you are a pretty scrawny pup.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. Your soap box is stolen, I'm here to collect sissy by.

Psst...
Don't feed the troll.

Says one of the want-to-be-bigger-trolls on the board.

 

[Contumacious]

So.... no, you cannot cite a specific instance of Congress appropriating of Money to the purpose of raising/supporting armies for a longer Term than two Years;

President Obama's 2010 budget proposal includes a total of $663.8 billion, including $533.8 billion for the DOD and $130 billion for overseas contingencies, primarily the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.......

That's one year of appropriation. One year is less than two years.
Why do you think this supports your assertion?

1) CONGRESS DECLARES A WAR then
2) Monies are appropriated for a period not to exceed two years. Currently monies are appropriated yearly even if no war has been declared.

The intent of the proviso was to avoid standing armies; but the Founders understood that emergencies occur and the Congress may need to raise an army.

The motherfuckers know what was intended but they ignore it in their quest to fund the gargantuan welfare/warfare state.

I fail to see, if you are an American, why you are applauding such criminality.

.

 

[Affrayer]

A few words of wisdom

Hey, politicians are full of words of wisdom:

youtube.com/watch?v=SZbPQt7B99s

Problem is, they are just words. Talk is cheap and "conservatives" prove this each and every election.

Shays's Rebellion and shortly afterward the Whiskey Rebellion were actions...actions that reflected the true nature of those who framed the government.

 

[Intense]

Nope, Intense, your soap box just collapsed. Your Republic does not exist except in your mind. I understand the Constitution sufficiently, have studied it for decades, understand the pro and con, and have concluded some time ago that you guys are somewhere around the corner sharing the bong. That's OK, but you are not correct.

Jake, I don't have a soap box, I don't want or need one. I probably haven't hit a bong for better than 25 years Jake. I'd probably be more oblivious than you and just as easily led around had I kept smoking. God I miss California. After it all falls apart, maybe I'll head back and watch the recovery medicated, on the beach.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A few words of wisdom

Hey, politicians are full of words of wisdom:

youtube.com/watch?v=SZbPQt7B99s

Problem is, they are just words. Talk is cheap and "conservatives" prove this each and every election.

Shays's Rebellion and shortly afterward the Whiskey Rebellion were actions...actions that reflected the true nature of those who framed the government.

Let's not compare todays politicans with the founders of this country.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's one year of appropriation. One year is less than two years.
Why do you think this supports your assertion?

1) CONGRESS DECLARES A WAR then
2) Monies are appropriated for a period not to exceed two years. Currently monies are appropriated yearly even if no war has been declared.

-Nothing- in the Constitution supprts this.
The power to raise and support armies is in -no way- tied to the power to declare war; both powers are completely independent of one another.

 

[Contumacious]

That's one year of appropriation. One year is less than two years.
Why do you think this supports your assertion?

1) CONGRESS DECLARES A WAR then
2) Monies are appropriated for a period not to exceed two years. Currently monies are appropriated yearly even if no war has been declared.

-Nothing- in the Constitution supprts this.
The power to raise and support armies is in -no way- tied to the power to declare war; both powers are completely independent of one another.

HUH?

Let me guess , you are either a ******* lifer in the armed forces enjoying the gravy train or employed by KBR, Halliburton or similar war profiteer.

Right?

'fess up

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, I've been putting off this response to the OP because I've been busy, and haven't wanted to go to the trouble of digging out the necessary reference books. I think it's past time, though.

For our purposes, the dictionary defines "conservative" thusly:

Tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional; marked by moderation or caution

I chose that definition from the several available because it is foolish to even attempt to pretend that our Founding Fathers belong to or fit into modern political parties and groups, and definitions relating to style, taste, and manners are irrelevant to the discussion.

Now, then. The argument goes that because our Founding Fathers staged the American Revolution to throw off British rule, that must make them "revolutionaries" - in the modern sense - and thus radicals, aka liberals. But does that chain of logic necessarily always follow? Is revolting against the government always radical and liberal?

Most people in this country, when they think of the causes of the American War for Independence, dredge up the phrase "no taxation without representation". In fact, this principle was only part of a larger conflict. The American revolutionaries were actually fighting to preserve what they saw as the traditional status quo, the rights that British citizens were supposed to be guaranteed, and which they felt were being encroached upon.

In arguing against the new taxes Parliament was imposing on the colonies, John Adams described them as "an unconstitutional innovation". The Braintree Instructions

Patrick Henry's proposed Virginia Resolves established clearly that the colonists' objection to the Stamp Act was based on the change and novelty of the law to the rights of Englishmen - which they were at that time - under standing British law. Virginia Resolves on the Stamp Act, 1765 May 30 While Virginia's legislators only approved five of the resolves, and later rescinded their approval of the fifth, Rhode Island's legislature copied and approved all seven.

The Stamp Act Congress of 1765 met to draft a joint statement of grievances for the British government, and in it, they protested that their ancient, chartered rights were being violated.

In other words, it is very clear that the American Revolution, unlike the French Revolution (for example), was based not on the desire to radically revise and restructure society, but on the desire to maintain traditional rights and legal customs that had been guaranteed by existing laws for centuries. That is to say, it was a conservative revolution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, Intense, your soap box just collapsed. Your Republic does not exist except in your mind. I understand the Constitution sufficiently, have studied it for decades, understand the pro and con, and have concluded some time ago that you guys are somewhere around the corner sharing the bong. That's OK, but you are not correct.

Jake, I don't have a soap box, I don't want or need one. I probably haven't hit a bong for better than 25 years Jake. I'd probably be more oblivious than you and just as easily led around had I kept smoking. God I miss California. After it all falls apart, maybe I'll head back and watch the recovery medicated, on the beach.

Anything from Tamarack to Malibu would be cool!

[ame="http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ourF7nF8P58"]http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ourF7nF8P58[/ame]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, my, we hear and feel Cecilie1200;s interior cry of 'help me, I can't shut up.' Kiddo, look up 'country party', 'whigs', review John Locke, for starts, and figure how they differ from the real conservatives, the Torie, Lord North, and King George III. Y

Your 'action hero' for that day and age should be Mr. Conservative, Ben Franklin. Come back and tell us about his progression from "Great Britain, Great Britain" to "USA, USA, USA"!

 

[Intense]

Okay, I've been putting off this response to the OP because I've been busy, and haven't wanted to go to the trouble of digging out the necessary reference books. I think it's past time, though.

For our purposes, the dictionary defines "conservative" thusly:

Tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional; marked by moderation or caution

I chose that definition from the several available because it is foolish to even attempt to pretend that our Founding Fathers belong to or fit into modern political parties and groups, and definitions relating to style, taste, and manners are irrelevant to the discussion.

Now, then. The argument goes that because our Founding Fathers staged the American Revolution to throw off British rule, that must make them "revolutionaries" - in the modern sense - and thus radicals, aka liberals. But does that chain of logic necessarily always follow? Is revolting against the government always radical and liberal?

Most people in this country, when they think of the causes of the American War for Independence, dredge up the phrase "no taxation without representation". In fact, this principle was only part of a larger conflict. The American revolutionaries were actually fighting to preserve what they saw as the traditional status quo, the rights that British citizens were supposed to be guaranteed, and which they felt were being encroached upon.

In arguing against the new taxes Parliament was imposing on the colonies, John Adams described them as "an unconstitutional innovation". The Braintree Instructions

Patrick Henry's proposed Virginia Resolves established clearly that the colonists' objection to the Stamp Act was based on the change and novelty of the law to the rights of Englishmen - which they were at that time - under standing British law. Virginia Resolves on the Stamp Act, 1765 May 30 While Virginia's legislators only approved five of the resolves, and later rescinded their approval of the fifth, Rhode Island's legislature copied and approved all seven.

The Stamp Act Congress of 1765 met to draft a joint statement of grievances for the British government, and in it, they protested that their ancient, chartered rights were being violated.

In other words, it is very clear that the American Revolution, unlike the French Revolution (for example), was based not on the desire to radically revise and restructure society, but on the desire to maintain traditional rights and legal customs that had been guaranteed by existing laws for centuries. That is to say, it was a conservative revolution.

And.......


DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
The members of this congress, sincerely devoted, with the warmest sentiments of affection and duty to His Majesty's person and government, inviolably attached to the present happy establishment of the Protestant succession, and with minds deeply impressed by a sense of the present and impending misfortunes of the British colonies on this continent; having considered as maturely as time would permit, the circumstances of said colonies, esteem it our indispensable duty to make the following declarations, of our humble opinions, respecting the most essential rights and liberties of the colonists, and of the grievances under which they labor, by reason of several late acts of Parliament.

1st. That His Majesty's subjects in these colonies owe the same allegiance to the crown of Great Britain that is owing from his subjects born within the realm, and all due subordination to that august body, the Parliament of Great Britain.

2d. That His Majesty's liege subjects in these colonies are entitled to all the inherent rights and privileges of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain.

3d. That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted rights of Englishmen, that no taxes should be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives.

4th. That the people of these colonies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be, represented in the House of Commons in Great Britain.

5th. That the only representatives of the people of these colonies are persons chosen therein, by themselves; and that no taxes ever have been or can be constitutionally imposed on them but by their respective legislatures.

6th. That all supplies to the crown, being free gifts of the people, it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the principles and spirit of the British constitution for the people of Great Britain to grant to His Majesty the property of the colonists.

7th. That trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of every British subject in these colonies.

8th. That the late act of Parliament entitled, "An act for granting and applying certain stamp duties, and other duties in the British colonies and plantations in America, etc.," by imposing taxes on the inhabitants of these colonies, and the said act, and several other acts, by extending the jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty beyond its ancient limits, have a manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists.

9th. That the duties imposed by several late acts of Parliament, from the peculiar circumstances of these colonies, will be extremely burthensome and grievous, and, from the scarcity of specie, the payment of them absolutely impracticable.

10th. That as the profits of the trade of these colonies ultimately center in Great Britain, to pay for the manufactures which they are obliged to take from thence, they eventually contribute very largely to all supplies granted there to the crown.

11th. That the restrictions imposed by several late acts of Parliament on the trade of these colonies will render them unable to purchase the manufactures of Great Britain.

12th. That the increase, prosperity, and happiness of these colonies depend on the full and free enjoyment of their rights and liberties, and an intercourse, with Great Britain, mutually affectionate and advantageous.

13th. That it is the right of the British subjects in these colonies to petition the king or either house of Parliament.

Lastly, That it is the indispensable duty of these colonies to the best of sovereigns, to the mother-country, and to themselves, to endeavor, by a loyal and dutiful address to His Majesty, and humble application to both houses of Parliament, to procure the repeal of the act for granting and applying certain stamp duties, of all clauses of any other acts of Parliament whereby the jurisdiction of the admiralty is extended as aforesaid, and of the other late acts for the restriction of the American commerce.
The Declaration of Rights of the Stamp Act Congress, October 19, 1765

 

[The T]

A few words of wisdom

Hey, politicians are full of words of wisdom:

youtube.com/watch?v=SZbPQt7B99s

Problem is, they are just words. Talk is cheap and "conservatives" prove this each and every election.

Shays's Rebellion and shortly afterward the Whiskey Rebellion were actions...actions that reflected the true nature of those who framed the government.

Let's not compare todays politicans with the founders of this country.

Indeed. In his parting remarks, George Washington warned of affiliations with parties and their interests over the interests of the Republic.

In part he stated: "They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests."

 

[Intense]

Hey, politicians are full of words of wisdom:

youtube.com/watch?v=SZbPQt7B99s

Problem is, they are just words. Talk is cheap and "conservatives" prove this each and every election.

Shays's Rebellion and shortly afterward the Whiskey Rebellion were actions...actions that reflected the true nature of those who framed the government.

Let's not compare todays politicans with the founders of this country.

Indeed. In his parting remarks, George Washington warned of affiliations with parties and their interests over the interests of the Republic.

In part he stated: "They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests."

Why he didn't just put a stake through Hamilton's heart we will never know.