Was the US Constitution doomed from the start?

[regent]

"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers
Douglas MacArthur

'

of course the typical illiterate has no idea that liberal then meant they were for very very tiny tiny govt because our Founders realized that central govt had been the source of evil in human history.

Welcome to your first lesson in American History.

Are you saying MacArthur, a West Point graduate, was an illiterate? Liberalism means the same today as when MacArthur made that speech to the Congress.
MacArthur was wrong however in calling the framers liberals, they were of different ideologies but some of the ideas used in the Constitution were from the Age of Enlightenment, and the ideas were liberal.
.

dear stupid illiterate they were liberal only if liberal means very very tiny tiny government because thats all our founders believed in.

Here are some quotes from Jefferson and madison to teach you y our ABC's:

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.

Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious

If the framers believed in small government why did they meet and take the smallest government we ever had and make a much, much bigger government with much, much more power?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If the framers believed in small government why did they meet and take the smallest government we ever had and make a much, much bigger government with much, much more power?

too stupid the new govt was 1% the size of todays on a per capita inflation adjusted basis.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[regent]

If the framers believed in small government why did they meet and take the smallest government we ever had and make a much, much bigger government with much, much more power?

too stupid the new govt was 1% the size of todays on a per capita inflation adjusted basis.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

So how much larger was the government the framers created, compared to the government it replaced?
But one thing seems certain the the growth of government indicates the American people want the government to provide services to all its citizens as governments provided to the noble class of days gone by. Even your posts are evidence you believe that history.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So how much larger was the government the framers created, compared to the government it replaced?

a tiny tiny bit but still 1% the size of today's on a per capita inflation adjusted basis.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But one thing seems certain the the growth of government indicates the American people want the government to provide services to all its citizens as governments provided to the noble class of days gone by. Even your posts are evidence you believe that history.

dear, people wanted Hitler too but that does not make it right!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

people want the government to provide services to all its citizens as governments provided to the noble class of days gone by.

dear that is too completely stupid!! How can govt provide services to all its citizens without ripping off all its people?

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Was the US Constitution doomed from the start?"

No.

But most conservatives were doomed to not understand the Constitution and its case law from the start.

 

[Vastator]

@C.Jones

Interesting. Why are conservatives handicapped in such a way? And since you state they've had this problem from the start. It must not have been written clearly? Or are you implying something else altogether?

 

[gipper]

Yes, it was doomed from the start because it depended on the political class abiding by it. And anyone who knows human nature, knows man is a terribly flawed thing and will abuse power whenever possible.

Sadly the citizenry allows the swindle to occur.

Today the Constitution is essential meaningless, but the people don't know it.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, it was doomed from the start because it depended on the political class abiding by it. And anyone who knows human nature, knows man is a terribly flawed thing and will abuse power whenever possible.

Sadly the citizenry allows the swindle to occur.

Today the Constitution is essential meaningless, but the people don't know it.

You make the mistake of assuming the "citizenry" is of some different species than the "political class". What makes the Constitution such a workable document is that it is based upon the notion that human beings are untrustworthy and so sets up a system in which no branch can hold ultimate power. The very fact that no one is happy with it is proof of its effectiveness. The only situation in which one side is actually happy is when you have a dictatorship.

 

[gipper]

Yes, it was doomed from the start because it depended on the political class abiding by it. And anyone who knows human nature, knows man is a terribly flawed thing and will abuse power whenever possible.

Sadly the citizenry allows the swindle to occur.

Today the Constitution is essential meaningless, but the people don't know it.

You make the mistake of assuming the "citizenry" is of some different species than the "political class". What makes the Constitution such a workable document is that it is based upon the notion that human beings are untrustworthy and so sets up a system in which no branch can hold ultimate power. The very fact that no one is happy with it is proof of its effectiveness. The only situation in which one side is actually happy is when you have a dictatorship.

You make the mistake of believing the political class is actually abiding by the Constitution.

What more proof do you need then to understand that much of what the fed gov does, is unconstitutional?

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, it was doomed from the start because it depended on the political class abiding by it. And anyone who knows human nature, knows man is a terribly flawed thing and will abuse power whenever possible.

Sadly the citizenry allows the swindle to occur.

Today the Constitution is essential meaningless, but the people don't know it.

You make the mistake of assuming the "citizenry" is of some different species than the "political class". What makes the Constitution such a workable document is that it is based upon the notion that human beings are untrustworthy and so sets up a system in which no branch can hold ultimate power. The very fact that no one is happy with it is proof of its effectiveness. The only situation in which one side is actually happy is when you have a dictatorship.

You make the mistake of believing the political class is actually abiding by the Constitution.

What more proof do you need then to understand that much of what the fed gov does, is unconstitutional?

Under the Constitution, the USSC decides disputes arising from the Constitution. What specifically are you referring to?

 

[gipper]

Yes, it was doomed from the start because it depended on the political class abiding by it. And anyone who knows human nature, knows man is a terribly flawed thing and will abuse power whenever possible.

Sadly the citizenry allows the swindle to occur.

Today the Constitution is essential meaningless, but the people don't know it.

You make the mistake of assuming the "citizenry" is of some different species than the "political class". What makes the Constitution such a workable document is that it is based upon the notion that human beings are untrustworthy and so sets up a system in which no branch can hold ultimate power. The very fact that no one is happy with it is proof of its effectiveness. The only situation in which one side is actually happy is when you have a dictatorship.

You make the mistake of believing the political class is actually abiding by the Constitution.

What more proof do you need then to understand that much of what the fed gov does, is unconstitutional?

Under the Constitution, the USSC decides disputes arising from the Constitution. What specifically are you referring to?

The USSC is supposed to be the final arbiter of whether a law is constitutional or not. It is clear that the USSC is a lawless entity, since nearly everything the fed gov does is unconstitutional.

The meaning of the Constitution was clearly and completely explained by the Founders. However the statists who took over our government, have expanded or bastardized its meaning.

 

[Unkotare]

It is clear that the USSC is a lawless entity, since nearly everything the fed gov does is unconstitutional. ...

.....................because you say so?


???????????????????

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, it was doomed from the start because it depended on the political class abiding by it. And anyone who knows human nature, knows man is a terribly flawed thing and will abuse power whenever possible.

Sadly the citizenry allows the swindle to occur.

Today the Constitution is essential meaningless, but the people don't know it.

You make the mistake of assuming the "citizenry" is of some different species than the "political class". What makes the Constitution such a workable document is that it is based upon the notion that human beings are untrustworthy and so sets up a system in which no branch can hold ultimate power. The very fact that no one is happy with it is proof of its effectiveness. The only situation in which one side is actually happy is when you have a dictatorship.

You make the mistake of believing the political class is actually abiding by the Constitution.

What more proof do you need then to understand that much of what the fed gov does, is unconstitutional?

Under the Constitution, the USSC decides disputes arising from the Constitution. What specifically are you referring to?

The USSC is supposed to be the final arbiter of whether a law is constitutional or not. It is clear that the USSC is a lawless entity, since nearly everything the fed gov does is unconstitutional.

The meaning of the Constitution was clearly and completely explained by the Founders. However the statists who took over our government, have expanded or bastardized its meaning.

So you're argument is that the Constitution is unconstitutional.

 

[peach174]

Yes, it was doomed from the start because it depended on the political class abiding by it. And anyone who knows human nature, knows man is a terribly flawed thing and will abuse power whenever possible.

Sadly the citizenry allows the swindle to occur.

Today the Constitution is essential meaningless, but the people don't know it.

You make the mistake of assuming the "citizenry" is of some different species than the "political class". What makes the Constitution such a workable document is that it is based upon the notion that human beings are untrustworthy and so sets up a system in which no branch can hold ultimate power. The very fact that no one is happy with it is proof of its effectiveness. The only situation in which one side is actually happy is when you have a dictatorship.

You make the mistake of believing the political class is actually abiding by the Constitution.

What more proof do you need then to understand that much of what the fed gov does, is unconstitutional?

Under the Constitution, the USSC decides disputes arising from the Constitution. What specifically are you referring to?

The USSC is supposed to be the final arbiter of whether a law is constitutional or not. It is clear that the USSC is a lawless entity, since nearly everything the fed gov does is unconstitutional.

The meaning of the Constitution was clearly and completely explained by the Founders. However the statists who took over our government, have expanded or bastardized its meaning.

So you're argument is that the Constitution is unconstitutional.

No he is saying that the Progressives in both parties changed it.
They changed it from individualism to collectivism and changed the meaning of to promote the general welfare in order to have a larger role for the Feds.

 

[gipper]

Yes, it was doomed from the start because it depended on the political class abiding by it. And anyone who knows human nature, knows man is a terribly flawed thing and will abuse power whenever possible.

Sadly the citizenry allows the swindle to occur.

Today the Constitution is essential meaningless, but the people don't know it.

You make the mistake of assuming the "citizenry" is of some different species than the "political class". What makes the Constitution such a workable document is that it is based upon the notion that human beings are untrustworthy and so sets up a system in which no branch can hold ultimate power. The very fact that no one is happy with it is proof of its effectiveness. The only situation in which one side is actually happy is when you have a dictatorship.

You make the mistake of believing the political class is actually abiding by the Constitution.

What more proof do you need then to understand that much of what the fed gov does, is unconstitutional?

Under the Constitution, the USSC decides disputes arising from the Constitution. What specifically are you referring to?

The USSC is supposed to be the final arbiter of whether a law is constitutional or not. It is clear that the USSC is a lawless entity, since nearly everything the fed gov does is unconstitutional.

The meaning of the Constitution was clearly and completely explained by the Founders. However the statists who took over our government, have expanded or bastardized its meaning.

So you're argument is that the Constitution is unconstitutional.

Please don't be absurd.

Tell me where in the Constitution it states the fed gov has the right to tax and subsidize food, housing, health care, education, or any other personal benefit of the PEOPLE of the United States?

 

[dcraelin]

If the framers believed in small government why did they meet and take the smallest government we ever had and make a much, much bigger government with much, much more power?

I am now reading a book by Kenneth Royce aka Boston T Party, a gun rights advocate,called HOLOGRAM OF LIBERTY. I think he goes off the rails on a few points but basically agrees that the founders wanted a bigger government.

One of the original proposed amendments would have required one representative for every 50,000 citizens (men only at that time I suppose). We have much less representation now to our detriment. A modification of one per 50000 similar to a recent plan suggested in California might actually work.There is a web site advocating more representation.

Some prominent founders opposed the Constitution. Including Patrick Henry and future president James Monroe. See my album for more pics.

 

[PratchettFan]

You make the mistake of assuming the "citizenry" is of some different species than the "political class". What makes the Constitution such a workable document is that it is based upon the notion that human beings are untrustworthy and so sets up a system in which no branch can hold ultimate power. The very fact that no one is happy with it is proof of its effectiveness. The only situation in which one side is actually happy is when you have a dictatorship.

You make the mistake of believing the political class is actually abiding by the Constitution.

What more proof do you need then to understand that much of what the fed gov does, is unconstitutional?

Under the Constitution, the USSC decides disputes arising from the Constitution. What specifically are you referring to?

The USSC is supposed to be the final arbiter of whether a law is constitutional or not. It is clear that the USSC is a lawless entity, since nearly everything the fed gov does is unconstitutional.

The meaning of the Constitution was clearly and completely explained by the Founders. However the statists who took over our government, have expanded or bastardized its meaning.

So you're argument is that the Constitution is unconstitutional.

Please don't be absurd.

Tell me where in the Constitution it states the fed gov has the right to tax and subsidize food, housing, health care, education, or any other personal benefit of the PEOPLE of the United States?

I'm not the one being absurd. Have you actually tried to read the Constitution? You should give it a try.

As to taxes, I refer you to Article 1 Section 8. As to the rest, the pre-amble establishes the intent of the Constitution is to provide for the general welfare, among other things. The congress is given authority to enact laws, also under Article 1 Section 8, to meet that requirement.

Now, if one feels the Congress or President (or a state for that matter) has gone too far, then I would refer you to Article III, Section 2, which defines how such disputes are resolved.

If you have something more substantial than "I don't like it" to present, then please do so. If not, then I would offer that Amendment I gives you the right to not like it and express that opinion at the top of your voice. I would also offer that if the Constitution wasn't working, as you suggest, then you would not have that right. The very fact you are publicly claiming the Constitution does not work is elegant evidence that it does. Thank you.

 

[regent]

But one thing seems certain the the growth of government indicates the American people want the government to provide services to all its citizens as governments provided to the noble class of days gone by. Even your posts are evidence you believe that history.

dear, people wanted Hitler too but that does not make it right!!

No, no let's stick to the question, never mind Hitler. Has the government of the United States grown since it's inception? If so, have the people voted for that growth by electing representatives that voted for that growth? Have the Courts, approved that growth?
Welcome to America.