The Constitution - as viewed by ideology

[Antares]

Any founding father who believed that our government should not do what "We the People" need was a complete and total fool

As is any founding father who thought he could define Government responsibilities to Americans 200 years from their death.

LOL, as decided by who?

You?
Obama?

Sorry no.....you are free to think of them any way you wish....but frankly it is youwho are the fool for thinking you know best for everyone else.

As decided by........We the People

(smile) Then you are as we speak rallying the "people" for a Constitutional Convention to what end?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In fact, the Founding Fathers decided on a Centralized Government for the purpose of dealing with the rest of the world. They recognized that the various nations of the world would not deal with 13 separate governments trying to act as "America".

To this end, they agreed to replace the Articles of Confederation with a Constitutions. They intentionally set severe limits on the power of the centralized government because they wanted it dealing with the world, not the internal workings of the many states; or the freedoms of the people.

Some of the Founders believed in a more Unitarian Central government, true. They were outvoted and properly shouted down.

In the end, we managed to get a Republic that favored the power of the people, in the States, over the power of the Federal Government. It has only been the last 110 years that a 'progressive' mindset has infected our social fabric and has perpetrated the notion that the collective wealth and power was a good thing.

Would that I had a time machine.

Incorrect.

It was clearly the original intent of the Framers to create a National government, and a Federal Constitution authorized by the people, not the states – where the states were subservient to Congress and the Federal courts, representing the will of all of the people, not a collection of states:

Prior to the adoption of the Constitution, the States had joined together under the Articles of Confederation. In that system, "the States retained most of their sovereignty, like independent nations bound together only by treaties." Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 9 (1964). After the Constitutional Convention convened, the Framers were presented with, and eventually adopted a variation of, "a plan not merely to amend the Articles of Confederation but to create an entirely new National Government with a National Executive, National Judiciary, and a National Legislature." Id., at 10. In adopting that plan, the Framers envisioned a uniform national system, rejecting the notion that the Nation was a collection of States, and instead creating a direct link between the National Government and the people of the United States. See, e. g., FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 791 (1982) (O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part) ("The Constitution . . . permitt[ed] direct contact between the National Government and the individual citizen"). In that National Government, representatives owe primary allegiance not to the people of a State, but to the people of the Nation.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

No time machine needed, the Constitution in the context of its case law exist now as the Framers originally intended.

 

[Darkwind]

In fact, the Founding Fathers decided on a Centralized Government for the purpose of dealing with the rest of the world. They recognized that the various nations of the world would not deal with 13 separate governments trying to act as "America".

To this end, they agreed to replace the Articles of Confederation with a Constitutions. They intentionally set severe limits on the power of the centralized government because they wanted it dealing with the world, not the internal workings of the many states; or the freedoms of the people.

Some of the Founders believed in a more Unitarian Central government, true. They were outvoted and properly shouted down.

In the end, we managed to get a Republic that favored the power of the people, in the States, over the power of the Federal Government. It has only been the last 110 years that a 'progressive' mindset has infected our social fabric and has perpetrated the notion that the collective wealth and power was a good thing.

Would that I had a time machine.

Incorrect.

It was clearly the original intent of the Framers to create a National government, and a Federal Constitution authorized by the people, not the states – where the states were subservient to Congress and the Federal courts, representing the will of all of the people, not a collection of states:

Prior to the adoption of the Constitution, the States had joined together under the Articles of Confederation. In that system, "the States retained most of their sovereignty, like independent nations bound together only by treaties." Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 9 (1964). After the Constitutional Convention convened, the Framers were presented with, and eventually adopted a variation of, "a plan not merely to amend the Articles of Confederation but to create an entirely new National Government with a National Executive, National Judiciary, and a National Legislature." Id., at 10. In adopting that plan, the Framers envisioned a uniform national system, rejecting the notion that the Nation was a collection of States, and instead creating a direct link between the National Government and the people of the United States. See, e. g., FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 791 (1982) (O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part) ("The Constitution . . . permitt[ed] direct contact between the National Government and the individual citizen"). In that National Government, representatives owe primary allegiance not to the people of a State, but to the people of the Nation.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

No time machine needed, the Constitution in the context of its case law exist now as the Framers originally intended.

You are quite wrong. But you know that, and I realize that no amount of rational discussion will convince you otherwise.

One need only just read the Founding Fathers to realize that I am right. How it all turned out is different in that we allowed ourselves to become complacent.

Have a nice day. Mine has already been ruined by a ******* moron and I'm going to bail before I get Myself banned.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Any founding father who believed that our government should not do what "We the People" need is a complete and total fool

As is any founding father who thought he could define Government responsibilities to Americans 200 years from their death.

They made sure the document could be changed. What they did not do is prevent the Courts from ignoring that requirement.

Yes they set up a system to change the Constitution. But not change it to address every petty law that Congress implemented. In Article one they gave Congress the power to make laws. That is a very broad power that is checked by the courts and the veto power of the President

And directly limited by article 1.It specifically lists the power of Congress.

 

[National Socialist]

The Founding Fathers did not want no government, they wanted limited government, and they correctly recognized that government is the greatest threat to our liberty, so they bent over backwards to limit it. So, here’s how today’s major parties and ideologies view it.

Pro Constitution

Small “L” libertarians – We love it. They wrote it right, they recognized the real threat is government. We just want what they created. Generally our differences with the Constitution is we wish they hadn’t said things like the “General Welfare,” which is just opening the door to those who don’t care what it means, even though it doesn’t mean what they want.

Small “L” libertarians want a small, fiscally conservative government, the military to be used strictly for the defense of the United States and don’t want morality laws. Exactly what the founding fathers wrote.

Small government conservatives – Small government conservatives mostly overlap with libertarians. The biggest differences are generally military where they are more willing to use the military overseas than libertarians and they are generally more open to policies like fighting drugs. At some point they will hopefully realize the problem isn’t what they want, but that government is the problem and not solution to those objectives as well.

Anti Constitution

Social Conservatives – Social Conservatives are generally fiscally conservative, but fiscal conservatism just isn’t their priority. While they talk about small government and our making our own decisions, they just ignore that there is no Constitutional Authority for morality laws and that government making morality laws isn’t small government.

Neocons – Pretty self explanatory, they are for high military use and big government spending. They are generally less interested in morality laws, but even that just isn’t the priority.

Big “L” Libertarians (the party)– They don’t like the Constitution because the two parties fight over it, so they associate it with the two parties. They’re elitist snobs and consider themselves above it regardless of what it says.

Anarchists – They don’t like the Constitution because the founding fathers wanted limited government, not no government. Anarchists are simple minded and naïve and don’t really have any solutions to anything, so they fight all solutions, even the minimal solution.

Liberals – Liberals are intellectual scavengers. They like the Constitution in a sense, but they don’t really know or care what it says. Since it is the law of the land (or was), they just quote it if it seems to serve their purpose, parse words if it doesn’t, get the courts to make law if they can and just say that “times have changed” to justify what they want and say the Founding Fathers would be liberal if they were alive today anyway.

LOL at your idea of an Anarchist...what a fool..

 

[Sallow]

You got it exactly backwards Jake.

Wait, what?

Hamilton was very big a centralized power..so much so he would have been okay with Washington being made a kind of King..

Irrelevant. He correctly articulated an objection to a Bill of Rights by asserting that the Federal government did not have the friggen power "to control the press" and if he put a restriction on the power of the feds to do something that they can not do, then it would be employed as a pretext to to assert that the feds have a power which they do not have. It is for this reason we have the 10th amendment.

Federalist 84... a more complete quote:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

[Madison thought it would be impossible to "enumerate" every power, so he argued that the enumeration should be broad so that central government would be able to quickly deal with issues as they arose..

Totally incorrect. Madison articulated a view that any attempt to enumerate all the rights in a Bill of Rights would be impossible and that people would assume by not listing those rights the governemnt would be able to violate those unenumerated rights. That is why we have a 9th amend.

You guys would be dangerrous around the Constitution, LOL... You seem to think the framers meant exactly the oppossite of what they actually meant.

Um what?

Again, Hamilton was big on centralized power. It's not "irrelevant" that he would have been comfortable with Washington as King. And in reading Hamilton's comment, it's more of a "don't worry, we've got it covered thing". That's not been the case. Where the Constitution has been vague..or at least subject to interpretation, many times that "interpretation" far different than original intent. Like privacy, which for quite some time, was thought to be implicit in the constitution..until it wasn't.

And Madison was doing exactly what I posted.

If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them.

Federalist No. 45 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if you take that with a grain of salt..as the intent of the Federalist papers was to convince New York to sign on to the Constitution, Madison's goal was exactly what I posted.

Broaden the powers and make them easier..and more flexible to administer.

 

[Sallow]

The Founding Fathers did not want no government, they wanted limited government, and they correctly recognized that government is the greatest threat to our liberty, so they bent over backwards to limit it. So, here’s how today’s major parties and ideologies view it.

Pro Constitution

Small “L” libertarians – We love it. They wrote it right, they recognized the real threat is government. We just want what they created. Generally our differences with the Constitution is we wish they hadn’t said things like the “General Welfare,” which is just opening the door to those who don’t care what it means, even though it doesn’t mean what they want.

Small “L” libertarians want a small, fiscally conservative government, the military to be used strictly for the defense of the United States and don’t want morality laws. Exactly what the founding fathers wrote.

Small government conservatives – Small government conservatives mostly overlap with libertarians. The biggest differences are generally military where they are more willing to use the military overseas than libertarians and they are generally more open to policies like fighting drugs. At some point they will hopefully realize the problem isn’t what they want, but that government is the problem and not solution to those objectives as well.

Anti Constitution

Social Conservatives – Social Conservatives are generally fiscally conservative, but fiscal conservatism just isn’t their priority. While they talk about small government and our making our own decisions, they just ignore that there is no Constitutional Authority for morality laws and that government making morality laws isn’t small government.

Neocons – Pretty self explanatory, they are for high military use and big government spending. They are generally less interested in morality laws, but even that just isn’t the priority.

Big “L” Libertarians (the party)– They don’t like the Constitution because the two parties fight over it, so they associate it with the two parties. They’re elitist snobs and consider themselves above it regardless of what it says.

Anarchists – They don’t like the Constitution because the founding fathers wanted limited government, not no government. Anarchists are simple minded and naïve and don’t really have any solutions to anything, so they fight all solutions, even the minimal solution.

Liberals – Liberals are intellectual scavengers. They like the Constitution in a sense, but they don’t really know or care what it says. Since it is the law of the land (or was), they just quote it if it seems to serve their purpose, parse words if it doesn’t, get the courts to make law if they can and just say that “times have changed” to justify what they want and say the Founding Fathers would be liberal if they were alive today anyway.

LOL at your idea of an Anarchist...what a fool..

What's your beef with that?

Anarchists want no government.

 

[National Socialist]

Indeed we do. But we aren't naive or simple minded...Oh and we do have solutions...the OP had their mind made up before even posting.

 

[rightwinger]

LOL, as decided by who?

You?
Obama?

Sorry no.....you are free to think of them any way you wish....but frankly it is youwho are the fool for thinking you know best for everyone else.

As decided by........We the People

(smile) Then you are as we speak rallying the "people" for a Constitutional Convention to what end?

Why would we need a Constitutional Convention?

Our Constitution is working as intended

 

[freedombecki]

In fact, the Founding Fathers decided on a Centralized Government for the purpose of dealing with the rest of the world. They recognized that the various nations of the world would not deal with 13 separate governments trying to act as "America".

To this end, they agreed to replace the Articles of Confederation with a Constitutions. They intentionally set severe limits on the power of the centralized government because they wanted it dealing with the world, not the internal workings of the many states; or the freedoms of the people.

Some of the Founders believed in a more Unitarian Central government, true. They were outvoted and properly shouted down.

In the end, we managed to get a Republic that favored the power of the people, in the States, over the power of the Federal Government. It has only been the last 110 years that a 'progressive' mindset has infected our social fabric and has perpetrated the notion that the collective wealth and power was a good thing.

Would that I had a time machine.

So do I. I would go back to the Roe v. Wade trial and bring the judges the future statistics on the loss of America's future of posterity due to a decision favoring the willful power to execute a human being before he got to grow up, and how vicious that act is, causing grief and immorality in America. I'd also like them to see the horrendous stats on STDs that resulted from their decision to legislate from the bench, and how horrifying it is for some of us to read about it. They should see the video of a partial birth abortion and the baby trying to get away from the vicious piercing equipment that also sucks out their brains and killing them cold. If they could have envisioned the 1.5 million horror stories for little ones brought about by mothers using abortion rather than morality to get rid of their problem, I think surely, their decision would have taken the rights of the child into some semblance of a different opinion on what truly was at stake when they decided eh, killing kids is okay! Let's do it! Because that's exactly what happened, and it's happening 4,109 times a day just in the USA. That's a far cry from the estimated 10,000 that was placed in front of America's face as being "how many mothers lives would be saved" every year if only abortion were made legal. How blind and stupid is that. No consideration was given to the propensity to kill it would give young men and women; the attitude that somehow forming a little child is so unimportant you can just get rid of it and make somebody else pay for it, too; and the billions of dollars spent on doing the procedure that would eventually be smacked onto the backs of already-stressed national debt. That's utterly irresponsible, and a horror to people who think life is worth something.

The Constitution is not protecting the future of Americans because of the way it has been interpreted to do evil rather than reconciling young people to a sense of responsibility for their adult behaviors.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The so-called, wannabee, and actual libertarians are running around as usual being confused.

Nothing new.

Hamilton and Madison and Jay and Adams and Washington and many others would turn our so-called libertarians today out into the alley and lock the door.

 

[Sallow]

The so-called, wannabee, and actual libertarians are running around as usual being confused.

Nothing new.

Hamilton and Madison and Jay and Adams and Washington and many others would turn our so-called libertarians today out into the alley and lock the door.

Basically..yeah.

It would be almost impossible to experience the sort of growth, prosperity and influence under the sort of government they propose.

Had the US started that way..it would never have lasted.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Um what?

Again, Hamilton was big on centralized power. It's not "irrelevant" that he would have been comfortable with Washington as King. And in reading Hamilton's comment, it's more of a "don't worry, we've got it covered thing". That's not been the case. Where the Constitution has been vague..or at least subject to interpretation, many times that "interpretation" far different than original intent. Like privacy, which for quite some time, was thought to be implicit in the constitution..until it wasn't.

It is irrelevant because that is not what he was advocating that the Constituion means. What he may have wanted to be in the Constituion is irrelevant. What he thought was included in the constituion is relevant. Hamilton may have wanted Washington to be King... but nowhere does he advocate that the Constituion makes Washington king, nor is there any indication that he was advocating that is what the Constituion means. So unless you can find a federalist paper wherein Hamilton asserts the Constituion appoints Washington king, your assertion is indeed irrelevant.

And Madison was doing exactly what I posted.

If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them.[/

Federalist No. 45 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if you take that with a grain of salt..as the intent of the Federalist papers was to convince New York to sign on to the Constitution, Madison's goal was exactly what I posted.

Broaden the powers and make them easier..and more flexible to administer.

ROTFLMAO!!! So your assertion that Madison says that there are really no new powers granted under the new Constituion (as opposed to the old Articles of Confederation) AND you take a grain of salt as well... that magically transform into Madison asserting that the new Constituion grants the feds unlimited power?

What drug are you using?

 

[regent]

No.....they weren't ignorant, FDR forced the Courts to rule in his favor.

If a president can force the Courts to rule in his favor, do all presidents force the Courts?
And how does the president do this forcing?

FDR had the political power to have congress add more seats to the SC. he threatened to do so.

So how many more seats to the Supreme Court were added by FDR?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only a liar would assert that anyone said "magically transform into Madison asserting that the new Constituion grants the feds unlimited powe". Or someone with limited intellect, maybe.

Hamilton and Madison and Jay, in their day and age, believed in big government statism in national affairs. After the failure of the AoC government, what else could they believe?

 

[rightwinger]

Our Constitution was not set ups as a Cook Book telling future generations what recepies they are allowed to make and what ingredients to use

If you read it, the Constitution establishes a kitchen comprised of The President, Congress and the Courts which decides what to make to eat

 

[legaleagle_45]

Our Constitution was not set ups as a Cook Book telling future generations what recepies they are allowed to make and what ingredients to use

If you read it, the Constitution establishes a kitchen comprised of The President, Congress and the Courts which decides what to make to eat

I think I am going to have indisgestion

 

[JakeStarkey]

If a president can force the Courts to rule in his favor, do all presidents force the Courts?
And how does the president do this forcing?

FDR had the political power to have congress add more seats to the SC. he threatened to do so.

So how many more seats to the Supreme Court were added by FDR?

FDR possessed no such power, which could be legislated by Congress only, and the Democratic Congress led by Sam Rayburn and his own Vice-President John Nance Garner kicked FDR in the ass and told him "no".

 

[legaleagle_45]

Only a liar would assert that anyone said "magically transform into Madison asserting that the new Constituion grants the feds unlimited powe". Or someone with limited intellect, maybe.

Hamilton and Madison and Jay, in their day and age, believed in big government statism in national affairs. After the failure of the AoC government, what else could they believe?

Read what Sallow was originally asserting. What the framers wanted was a a more powerful central government than that found under the AoC, but they certainly did not assert that they had created an all powerful government. Far from it .

 

[legaleagle_45]

Only a liar would assert that anyone said "magically transform into Madison asserting that the new Constituion grants the feds unlimited powe". QUOTE]

Ho hum:

Madison thought it would be impossible to "enumerate" every power, so he argued that the enumeration should be broad so that central government would be able to quickly deal with issues as they arose..

So he then quotes Madison in Federalist 45 asserting there are no new powers granted, adds a grain of salt and comes up with

Madison thought it would be impossible to "enumerate" every power, so he argued that the enumeration should be broad so that central government would be able to quickly deal with issues as they arose

And you call me a liar?