Interesting discussion.
-- Summing up one's politics by the single dimension of left-right is incredibly reductive. I'm happy to use it out of convenience, but we should expect any founding father to form their own fairly coherent views rather than adopt wholesale any political philosophy present today in total.
I think that's fair and I believe I pointed out in my OP that the FFs would not fit cleanly into any modern political party. My premise was they they would have more in common with the Republicans as opposed to the Democrats. You will note that I did not use absolute language in my assessment.
-- I think your conclusion that the founders would have opposed abortion is worse than speculative.
Well you asked to be corrected so allow me to do just that. James Wilson, who was a signatory of the Declaration of Independence, a major contributor to the Constitution, and one of the first Supreme Court Justices actually addressed the topic of abortion. Wilson's views overall were widely endorsed by Madison, Jefferson, Washington, etc. He wrote:
“
With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.” (“
Lectures on Law,” Ch. 12, p. 597 in The Works of James Wilson. ed. Robert G. McCloskey (1967))
Indeed, if this was accepted as the legal definition of "life" then the statement by the FFs in the Declaration of Independence that "
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.", then I would say that my assertion that the FFs would
likely be pro-life is
far from speculative.
I would concede that, since abortion is not addressed specifically in the Constitution, and argument could be made that the FFs either felt it was an implied issue covered under the 9th Amendment, or at best was a states rights issue according to the 10th Amendment.
-- When the Constitution was proposed, people were very aware of the fact that certain clauses (eg, Welfare, Commerce) could be cited in a broad use of federal powers even without further amendment. Further, it was not at all clear at the time that the Supreme Court would strike down acts of Congress as unconstitutional, meaning that the practical limits the Constitution set on the Federal government were necessarily weak. In short, a number of people were well aware that the Constitution as originally constructed (I'm a little hazy on how this perception changed with the adoption of the tenth amendment) could lead to the level of federal control we have today.
A compelling argument. Yet Article III. Section 2. states: "
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority..." As Article I of the Constitution is specific in that Congress exists to create laws it's difficult to see how the SCOTUS was
not intended to rule upon the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress. I get the gist of your argument though and I will tell you how perception changed given the 10th Amendment.
Initially, the court interpreted their powers very broadly. The first two presidents (Washington and Adams) were either Federalist (Adams) or had a federalist lean (Washington). Jay was a Federalist as well so Washington and Adams didn't challenge the court very much because the court tended to agree with them. At the end of Adams' term he filled the courts with Federalist judges in what was known as the "midnight appointments". Jefferson spent a great deal of time trying to get those judges out but was largely unsuccessful. During the Madison and Monroe administrations they really had other things to worry about (such as the War of 1812) and by that time they had also been able to assign justices more in line with their philosophy anyhow.
Andrew Jackson (D) really challenged the SCOUTS however and very frequently ignored their rulings. The most famous example, of course was the SCOTUS ruling in Worcester v. Georgia wherein the Marshall court ruled that Jackson's attempt to remove the Cherokee from their lands was illegal. Jackson's response was "
John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." What followed of course was the
Trail of Tears and widespread ethnic cleansing in regards to several Native American tribes.
So in regards to the 10th Amendment and the increased power of government, it's primarily because the SCOTUS likes power too, presidents always attempt to pack the court with justices who support their views (nowhere was this more evident than FDR attempting to flood the SCOTUS when they kept striking down his policies), and rarely is the SCOTUS ever really challenged. They pretty much do what they want and that's pretty much it.
Back to the point. Yes I would agree that the FFs may have been aware that the inclusion of such clauses and language within the Constitution could eventually lead to an increase in federal authority, but that is not to say that they would have welcomed or endorsed it. Indeed, as has been said several times before by many posters, these guys simply did not want an intrusive form of federal government. They had just gone to war to get rid of that exact thing, and the 10th Amendment is very clear that what is not specifically empowered to the federal government by the Constitution is up to the individual states. That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for big government to me.
-- A number of amendments were adopted to the Constitution that either increased the power of the federal government or decreased the power of the states by increasing the power of the people: 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 (repealed), 19, 23, 24, 26. This doesn't directly address what the founders thought...
I think I will let the part of your statement that I highlighted speak for itself.
-- You say that the Federalists and modern Democrats thought similarly about the role of the military. Isn't that backwards? Federalists wanted a stronger military than DRs, and modern Republicans want a stronger military than Democrats.
Well kind of yes and kind of no. The Federalists did most certainly want a stronger military than the DRs
initially. This is evidenced by Adams building an army and navy during the Quasi War and in regards to dealing with the Barbary Pirates, and the dismantling of all that by Jefferson. However, Jefferson himself admitted that was a mistake in later letters to Adams following his terms of office. (BTW...if you ever get a chance read those series of letters between Jefferson and Adams. They are very enlightening). Following Jefferson's terms, Madison recognized Jefferson's error and built them right back up. Monroe maintained a strong military and used it (or at least the threat of it) to secure American dominance of the Americas with the Monroe Doctrine.
So yes Jefferson and the DRs initially opposed a strong military, but they pretty quickly changed their minds. It's important as well to realize that the first few presidents made a lot of mistakes. They were new at this game and they had a steep learning curve. In reality the founding fathers were not particularly great presidents. They were fantastic thinkers, legislators, theorists, philosophers, motivators...but when it came to being executors....they left a little to be desired sometimes.
-- I disagree with your conclusion that there is no question that the founding fathers would be Republicans/ Tea Partiers if alive today.
Your disagreement is noted and I respectfully disagree with your disagreement.
midcan...I am getting to you. I promise.
