Our founding fathers were not conservative

[hipeter924]

posting religious rightwingnut BS is not PROOF of anything except for the OPINION of religious rightwingnuts.

They will keep saying it till the messiah returns, but if he did he probably wouldn't accept them as his followers, something about "Thou shall not steal".

In truth we were founded greatly on Locke's Principles, which are Christian, and Separate Church and State. Separation of Church and State is a Christian Principle. You know that, right? Let me show you.....

Luke 20:19 And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.



20:20 And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.



20:21 And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly:



20:22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?



20:23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?



20:24 Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's.



20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

The Holy Bible

Unfortunately many take Caesar's money and call it god's.

 

[Affrayer]

And of course they readily provide the means for warmongers to constantly create domestic and international battlefields. Just because they can..

And not having a strong national security apparatus is an invitation for others to attack.

That's the thing about humans, they be humans. Or as Pogo said: "We've met the enemy and he is us."

 

[M14 Shooter]

Alexander Hamilton, the monarchist who wanted America to have its own king and was shunted off into the Treasury by the other Founding Fathers because they disagreed so profoundly with him, is supposed to be accepted, wholly and all by himself, as the final word on what the entirety of the Founding Fathers wanted and intended?

Hamilton contradicts himself several times regarding the allocation of power in a general and then specific sense. He is consistent in his view here only in that hiis writings support whatever HE wants to be able to do at the time.

Given that you can quote Hamilton making both sides of the same argument indictates that his words here are useless.

Madison's interpretation of the clause is, however, consistent within his other writings. There's no sound reason to accept the Hamiltonian construct over the Madisonian, other than you, like Hamilton, want the government to be able to do whatever you want it to do.

 

[Affrayer]

Hamilton contradicts himself several times regarding the allocation of power in a general and then specific sense.

But can you blame him? At least he tried to reconcile the meaning of "General Welfare."

Perhaps you prefer the framers who solved the quandary of whether to list all the powers of the federal government or just define them in general terms by simply ignoring the phrase "General Welfare."

 

[M14 Shooter]

CONSERVATIVE in political terms means clinging to the past way of doing things.
If you happened to live in a world where most of the world's governments were run by MONACHIES then creating a government based on such a RADICALLY LIBERAL notion as a government for of and by the PEOPLE?

You fail to understand - or, perhaps, simply do not know - that the Founding Fathers were very much fighting for the rights that had been established under the English government up to that time. In that, all they wanted was to maintain the rights that they had enjoyed up until the change in The King-in-Parliament's attitude toward the colonies after the 7/9 years war, The declaration of independece, and prior writings bu Jefferson, point this out rather clearly.

Remember that the English were a free people, and that the colonials, in every respect, considered themselves English. Once their rights, relative to those they had previously enjoyed and those enjoyed in England propoer, were diminished, they acted, over time and in varying ways, to preserve those rights.

As you state, trying to keep what you have is conservative; under this argument, the Founding Fathers were, well, conservative.

 

[Affrayer]

You fail to understand - or, perhaps, simply do not know - that the Founding Fathers were very much fighting for the rights that had been established under the English government up to that time.

Really? Perhaps you'll explain why the "framers" of the Constitution pretty much left individual rights out of that document? That they had to be forced to include a Bill of Rights...

 

[M14 Shooter]

And of course they readily provide the means for warmongers to constantly create domestic and international battlefields. Just because they can..

And not having a strong national security apparatus is an invitation for others to attack.

Indeed. The idea that there should be no standing army except in times of war simply illustrates an abject ignorance of what is necessary for national security.

All one really need do is look at the condition of the US military 1937-1941 and the difficulties we had mobilizing an effective fighting force.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hamilton contradicts himself several times regarding the allocation of power in a general and then specific sense.

But can you blame him? At least he tried to reconcile the meaning of "General Welfare."

Can I blame him for arging that the government should be able to do whatever he wanted it to be able to do in any given situation, even it if meant contradicting something he had previously argued? If I were interested in such a thing and believed such a thing a worthwile goal, then no.

This is no different than current politicians arguing that a given action by a member of the opposite party violates the Constitution and then arguing that the same action taken by a member of their own party does not.

Like I said -- if you can counter an author's interpretation of a particular text with another example of his own interpretation, then his interpretations can have no meaning in terms of determining the meaning of that text.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You fail to understand - or, perhaps, simply do not know - that the Founding Fathers were very much fighting for the rights that had been established under the English government up to that time.

Really? Perhaps you'll explain why the "framers" of the Constitution pretty much left individual rights out of that document? That they had to be forced to include a Bill of Rights...

The arguments here are pretty clear - there was no need for the protection of the various rights noted as nothing in the Constitution specifically gives the power to act against those rights. These protectiosn were, thankfully, included at the insistence of various people and entities, but the argument that they were unnecessary was valid, and speaks strongly to the limited nature of the powers given to the Federal government.

Back to my original statement...
The impetus behind the revolutuion was very, very much centered around the preservation of existing rights that had been unduly diminished by the English government. Acting to preserve what you have always had is, by the definition presented, conservative.

 

[Affrayer]

All one really need do is look at the condition of the US military 1937-1941 and the difficulties we had mobilizing an effective fighting force.

Heck, you can start with the Civil War when the militia system was declared a failure and abandoned by the North.

 

[Affrayer]

Can I blame him for arging that the government should be able to do whatever he wanted it to be able to do in any given situation, even it if meant contradicting something he had previously argued?

That's not what he said. to paraphrase he said: "What could be more natural then to state the general to be followed by a list of specifics."

As far as I know, he never contradicted that. And yes, it was just as impossible to state a limited enough "generality" as it was impossible to list each and every possible specific power. The only other solution was to be forced to amend the Constitution dozens of times each year to account for the changing environment. As an example, we'd need a new amendment just for the Air Force.

This is no different than current politicians arguing that a given action by a member of the opposite party violates the Constitution and then arguing that the same action taken by a member of their own party does not.

Come on, it's not the democrats who are always howling about what's Constitutional or not. Just as it's not the democrats who are violating the Constitution at every whim.

 

[Affrayer]

The arguments here are pretty clear - there was no need for the protection of the various rights noted as nothing in the Constitution specifically gives the power to act against those rights.

First you have got to be kidding...the whole idea of a "limited" government is that it's limited. There was no such limitations on the federal government concerning individual rights before they amended it with the Bill of Rights. Second, the good people of Massachusetts totally disagreed with that assessment and refused to ratify the Constitution until such protections were included.

The impetus behind the revolutuion...

Whoa...the revolution gave birth to the Articles of Confederation which was a far more liberal document then our present Constitution. We should not confuse the two...

 

[Contumacious]

And of course they readily provide the means for warmongers to constantly create domestic and international battlefields. Just because they can..

And not having a strong national security apparatus is an invitation for others to attack.

That's the thing about humans, they be humans. Or as Pogo said: "We've met the enemy and he is us."

Bullshit.

When was the last time Switzerland was attacked? Have you noticed that they are ******* NEUTRAL and don't have goddamned troops all over creation?

We have a massive military and paramilitary apparatus which is used by the welfare/warfare state to terrorize US citizens as well as those of the world community.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The arguments here are pretty clear - there was no need for the protection of the various rights noted as nothing in the Constitution specifically gives the power to act against those rights.

First you have got to be kidding...

Why would I kid about somehting so obviously true? All one need to id read the debates on the issue. On the whole, the Federalists believed in the British system of common law which did not define natural rights or provide specific protections for them. They believed that adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution would limit their rights to those listed in the Constitution - thus, the 9th Amendment.

the whole idea of a "limited" government is that it's limited. There was no such limitations on the federal government concerning individual rights before they amended it with the Bill of Rights.

More importantly, the vision of the limited government created by the Constitution was so clear that it was argued that the powers described by the constitution gave no power to abridge the rights in question.

Second, the good people of Massachusetts totally disagreed with that assessment and refused to ratify the Constitution until such protections were included.

Yes... but that's beside the point that the fathers acted to preserve the rights they had previously enjoyed and were enjoyed by those in England.

The impetus behind the revolutuion...

Whoa...the revolution gave birth to the Articles of Confederation which was a far more liberal document then our present Constitution. We should not confuse the two...[/QUOTE]
Irrelevant to what I said.

 

[Affrayer]

When was the last time Switzerland was attacked?

July 4, 2007

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9-q4W5f3KA[/ame]

Have you noticed that they are ******* NEUTRAL...

Being Hitler's banker is neutral?

Switzerland: Military service

3.2.1 Switzerland: Military service

Military service is compulsory for every male Swiss. There is no
civil service to substitute armed service (this was refused two times
in a vote). Every male Swiss citizen has to go to the army unless
physically or mentally handicapped or unless he can "prove" to a jury
of officers that he has sound religious reasons for refusing to do
service (Barras Law).​

I'm guessing you like to sniff gun cleaning fluid...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can I blame him for arging that the government should be able to do whatever he wanted it to be able to do in any given situation, even it if meant contradicting something he had previously argued?

That's not what he said.

That's a summary of the whole of his writings.

To paraphrase he said: "What could be more natural then to state the general to be followed by a list of specifics."
As far as I know, he never contradicted that.

Here's just one example
Hamilton:
This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended. - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.- Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures 5 Dec. 1791

And yes, it was just as impossible to state a limited enough "generality" as it was impossible to list each and every possible specific power.

On the contrary -- it is perfectly posible to specify every power you wish a government to have.

This is no different than current politicians arguing that a given action by a member of the opposite party violates the Constitution and then arguing that the same action taken by a member of their own party does not.

Come on, it's not the democrats ...

-I- didn't mention -any- particular party
Your response, however, certainly denotes an agreement w/ the principle of what I said.

Thus, Hamilton, who was self-contradicting and self-serving. is not a valid source for determining the intent or meaning of the variouts passages on the Constitution.

 

[Affrayer]

Why would I kid about somehting so obviously true? All one need to id read the debates on the issue.

Wait, weren't you the one arguing that they sometimes contradicted themselves? Now you are saying that each and every word was sacrosanct. Could you make up your mind?

BTW: Who won the debates?

More importantly, the vision of the limited government created by the Constitution was so clear that it was argued that the powers described by the constitution gave no power to abridge the rights in question.

Yes and it was also argued that the federal government was too strong and that it would encroach on state powers. Lots of arguments but you know what, it's only what got written down, signed and ratified that counts.

Yes... but that's beside the point...

Nope, that is the point. when we are talking about what happened in Massachusetts we are talking about something that occurred contemporaneously. Not two people discussing events more than 200 hundred years later.

Irrelevant to what I said.

Absolutely wrong. Many people, including yourself, tend to confuse the principles in the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. Granted there are some strong similarities but there are also some strong disparities. Failure to account for those differences leads to errors in analysis.

There were very good reasons for abandoning the Articles of Confederation after only eight years and for the refusal to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. To assume that neither action was "necessary" because something was "implied" just doesn't cut the muster...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why would I kid about somehting so obviously true? All one need to id read the debates on the issue.

Wait, weren't you the one arguing that they sometimes contradicted themselves? Now you are saying that each and every word was sacrosanct. Could you make up your mind?

You aren't paying attention. Let me know when you can/do.

Nope, that is the point...

No.. the point is that the Fathers fought to preserve the rights they previously had, making them, by the definition provides, conservatives.

 

[Affrayer]

You aren't paying attention. Let me know when you can/do.

Should I take your non-responsive answer as your capitulation?

No.. the point is that the Fathers fought to preserve the rights they previously had, making them, by the definition provides, conservatives.

Nope, as I pointed out before, those that framed the Constitution were not concerned with "preserving" individual rights. Just as I will point out that it is conservatives who are most likely to trample individual rights. See Bush Jr and warrantless searches.

 

[Contumacious]

under this argument, the Founding Fathers were, well, conservative.

Bullshit.

The Constitution is a Libertarian document.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Patrick Henryhttp://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.htmlhttp://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html

Does he sound like a "conservative"? He definitely was not a lily pad liberal!!!!!!!!!!!!

.