Our founding fathers were not conservative

[The T]

Intense, you are believing in an universal construct that did not exist in 1787 and certainly not now. Not all the Founders, much less all the writers of the Federalist Papers, believed in a strict construction of the Constitution. The FP were published to persuade the New Yorkers to ratify the document, not to set a definitive guideline for the future. We live in their future, and my personal opinion is that I do not believe they would think we should be bound by their perspectives.

In your imagination you are of course right Jake. You need to know where to draw the line though. Madison and Jefferson both fought with Hamilton over encroachment of Federal Powers, as we fight today. Amendment the true path of the Living Document. When Judicial Review crosses the line of reason, it negates all checks and balances. There is a definitive guideline Jake, that is due process, rule of law.

Indeed. and why the Judicial is called the most despotic branch of government.

 

[The T]

No. The Militias are separate. The National Guard is under the Authority of the respective Governors. God I hate public School indoctrination.

Ultimately they are under the power of Congress.

What part of the National Guard fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq aren't you getting?

The Militias are now separate from the National Guard Sallow. They are Non Government. The original Purpose of the Militias was to avoid the need of a standing Army. You are confusing the roles of 3 or 4 types of entities, including the Reserves. They are not interchangeable, though The Reserves and National Guard are used by Military command.

Indeed. Militias were armed citizens that banded together to defend thier towns or cities from invaders.

 

[Contumacious]

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."

Had the powers that be listened to his advise , we would not have a gargantuan welfare/warfare state which has bankrupted the nation.

.

 

[The T]

So if congress has power over the militia who protects the people from a tyranical government?

The people themselves in their right to be secure in thier liberty, life and property

They have that right ONLY if they have the power to do so.

I'm not saying this from a legal or moral POV, I'm speaking realistically.

IN the world of theory you might have some kind of unalienable rights.

But in this world, you have the rights you can ENFORCE.

Realistically or not? It still exists. Sorry if that does not suit you. All citizens have that power. That power may have been watered down, but it does not result in any less legitimacy.

 

[Intense]

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."

Had the powers that be listened to his advise , we would not have a gargantuan welfare/warfare state which has bankrupted the nation.

.

Agreed that the line was crossed playing World Police, but that is only part of the problem. There are many areas of our lives where the Fed has wrongly trespassed.

 

[The T]

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."

Had the powers that be listened to his advise , we would not have a gargantuan welfare/warfare state which has bankrupted the nation.

.

Indeed so. I am also with Intense on this. There are many areas to where the Imperial Fed have overstepped it's bounds, and indeed had they heeded the advice of Washington, and the many that spoke, wrote eloquently in the Federalist and even the Anti Federalists ?

We would not be in this mess. Then one would have to assume therefore that these lessons have been ignored, and the true wisdom of the Founders is whithering on the vine, except that there are those of us that
understand it and intend to reel this behemouth of Government back off the preface of it's designed, purposeful, ignorant destruction.


That is what we Conservatives are.

 

[The T]

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.

Point of fact we know how they settled disputes back then and it required a second...but then they were also Gentlemen that graciouslt accepted differences of opinion through heated debate as long as their honor wasn't put into question...

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Point of fact we know how they settled disputes back then and it required a second...but then they were also Gentlemen that graciouslt accepted differences of opinion through heated debate as long as their honor wasn't put into question...

On the other hand, it's no coincidence that Hamilton the monarchist was never allowed to hold any office higher than Secretary of the Treasury.

 

[The T]

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

Point of fact we know how they settled disputes back then and it required a second...but then they were also Gentlemen that graciouslt accepted differences of opinion through heated debate as long as their honor wasn't put into question...

On the other hand, it's no coincidence that Hamilton the monarchist was never allowed to hold any office higher than Secretary of the Treasury.

Nice point...and he was a beliver in the abomination (Incarnation) we have today and that is the Federal Reserve....not to mention a strong Cental Government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Point of fact we know how they settled disputes back then and it required a second...but then they were also Gentlemen that graciouslt accepted differences of opinion through heated debate as long as their honor wasn't put into question...

On the other hand, it's no coincidence that Hamilton the monarchist was never allowed to hold any office higher than Secretary of the Treasury.

He did well, nonetheless. A "creole bastard" (vicious but a true comment, by John Adams), Hamilton did quite well: only below Washington and Adams while at the level of his peer and political enemy, Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton became the head of the Federalist Party, the president-maker having his federalists in Congress choose Jefferson over Burr, and then paying his life to Burr in the most infamous duel in American history.

 

[The T]

Point of fact we know how they settled disputes back then and it required a second...but then they were also Gentlemen that graciouslt accepted differences of opinion through heated debate as long as their honor wasn't put into question...

On the other hand, it's no coincidence that Hamilton the monarchist was never allowed to hold any office higher than Secretary of the Treasury.

He did well, nonetheless. A "creole bastard" (vicious but a true comment, by John Adams), Hamilton did quite well: only below Washington and Adams while at the level of his peer and political enemy, Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton became the head of the Federalist Party, the president-maker having his federalists in Congress choose Jefferson over Burr, and then paying his life to Burr in the most infamous duel in American history.

And this has to do with WHAT in context...Fakey?

That's right...ZERO Dot ZERO.

 

[M14 Shooter]

-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.

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.

No.. I am someone who is able to read plain English; the fact that I am exceptionally well-schooled in the Constition is beyind that fact.

-Nothing- in the constitution subordinates the power to raise armies to the power to declare war; nothing requires the latter before the former is available for exercise. To argiue otherwise denotes an unfathomable degree of ignorance.

 

[Contumacious]

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."

Had the powers that be listened to his advise , we would not have a gargantuan welfare/warfare state which has bankrupted the nation.

.

Agreed that the line was crossed playing World Police, but that is only part of the problem. There are many areas of our lives where the Fed has wrongly trespassed.

Indeed it has.

.

 

[Gunny]

there, I said it. Feel free to prove me wrong with empirical fact. go on

Nor were they 21st century Democrats. You have to look at 1932 - 45 Germany to find THEM.

 

[Contumacious]

-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.

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.

No.. I am someone who is able to read plain English; the fact that I am exceptionally well-schooled in the Constition is beyind that fact.

-Nothing- in the constitution subordinates the power to raise armies to the power to declare war; nothing requires the latter before the former is available for exercise. To argiue otherwise denotes an unfathomable degree of ignorance.

HUH?

WHY the **** do you want standing armies if you

1) read plain English

2) are not employed by the military or conflicted by interest?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[u2scram]

""They were revolutionaries and would have been executed had they not won independence.""

true. but there was a corrupt element that was only interested in profiting from the result of the revolution - no matter which side won.

we call such people conservatives.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Cecilie, we have tryed to explain exactly what you posted. 2500 differant ways, but to those who disagree it has not been accepted. They still think the founding fathers were equal to todays liberals. Good post though.

 

[Intense]

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.

No.. I am someone who is able to read plain English; the fact that I am exceptionally well-schooled in the Constition is beyind that fact.

-Nothing- in the constitution subordinates the power to raise armies to the power to declare war; nothing requires the latter before the former is available for exercise. To argiue otherwise denotes an unfathomable degree of ignorance.

HUH?

WHY the **** do you want standing armies if you

1) read plain English

2) are not employed by the military or conflicted by interest?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

In present day the world is a very hostile place, with the tyrant understanding the threat of force of arms, where reason fails. It is Human Nature.

 

[California Girl]

there, I said it. Feel free to prove me wrong with empirical fact. go on

Nor were they 21st century Democrats. You have to look at 1932 - 45 Germany to find THEM.

The Founders had basically jack shit to do with our current crop of ******* corrupt bastards - nor would they support either party.... but we shouldn't let logic interrupt the stupid whining of either side. It keeps them occupied.

 

[Sallow]

there, I said it. Feel free to prove me wrong with empirical fact. go on

Nor were they 21st century Democrats. You have to look at 1932 - 45 Germany to find THEM.

What a load of unmitigated bullshit.