# Was Constitutional Convention Really a Liberal Coup?



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

It mostly was it seems. The Articles had been a huge success at limiting central govt. They contained amendment procedures, to amend the Articles, but every time the liberals tried to use them to expand the power of the central govt they failed. That is when they finally gave up and went outside the ratification process and subversively called their own convention. Who showed up? Liberals who wanted to expand the power of central govt. As soon as the conservatives saw how dangerous the new Constitution was [ Jefferson and Madison, mostly] they formed the Republican Party in 1792 to fight against liberal big govt, and Republicans have been carrying on the battle ever since.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Mar 16, 2018)

The liberals of that time were not the "liberals" of our time.  See "Classical Liberalism".

The Founders intentionally limited federal authority.  Also, the "Democrat-Republican Party" was formed to oppose the Federalist Party, which favored a strong central government as do our current-day "liberals".

The Republican Party was not formed until 1854.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> The liberals of that time were not the "liberals" of our time.  See "Classical Liberalism".



obviously I was using today's definitions so the reader would not be burdened with having to know definitions from 200 years ago.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> .
> 
> The Founders intentionally limited federal authority.



100% wrong of course, the Founders intentionally expanded federal authority


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Mar 16, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > The liberals of that time were not the "liberals" of our time.  See "Classical Liberalism".
> ...



Why add to the confusion?  Most people these days have all the education of a fruit bat.  Teach them.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Also, the "Democrat-Republican Party" was formed to oppose the Federalist Party, which favored a strong central government as do our current-day "liberals".
> 
> The Republican Party was not formed until 1854.



wrong of course. Jefferson and Madison formed Republican Party in 1792. Democratic-Republican Party was not formed until next century. Sorry to rock your world.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Mar 16, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



The Bill of Rights is not an expansive document, but a restrictive one.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Why add to the confusion?  Most people these days have all the education of a fruit bat.  Teach them.



by using today's definitions you prevent confusion. Make sense??


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Mar 16, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Also, the "Democrat-Republican Party" was formed to oppose the Federalist Party, which favored a strong central government as do our current-day "liberals".
> ...



Okay, you're uneducated.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> The Bill of Rights is not an expansive document, but a restrictive one.


Articles of Confederation was restrictive. Constitution was expansive


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Okay, you're uneducated.



if so why so afraid to tell us why? What do you learn from your fear?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Mar 16, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Why add to the confusion?  Most people these days have all the education of a fruit bat.  Teach them.
> ...



No.  Consider "well-regulated" as an example.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> No.  Consider "well-regulated" as an example.



and?????


----------



## usmbguest5318 (Mar 16, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> It mostly was it seems. *The Articles had been a huge success at limiting central govt.* They contained amendment procedures, to amend the Articles, but *every time the liberals tried to use them to expand the power of the central govt they failed.* That is when they finally gave up and went outside the ratification process and subversively called their own convention. Who showed up? Liberals who wanted to expand the power of central govt. As soon as the conservatives saw how dangerous the new Constitution was [ Jefferson and Madison, mostly] they formed the Republican Party in 1792 to fight against liberal big govt, and Republicans have been carrying on the battle ever since.



I don't have the will go to into all the details that make untrue your central thesis and make inaccurate your depictions of the nature of governance theory and practice in the years between the Revolution and the Constitution's enactment.  Fortunately, someone has taken the time to publish a paper that does show as much.

The United States and the Articles of Confederation: Drifting Toward Anarchy or Inching Toward Commonwealth? [My remarks below are not a comprehensive summation, not even close, of the content of the here hyperlinked document.]

The Articles created a sovereign, national government, and, as such, limited the rights of the states to conduct their own diplomacy and foreign policy. However, this proved difficult to enforce, as the national government could not prevent the state of Georgia from pursuing its own independent policy regarding Spanish Florida, attempting to occupy disputed territories and threatening war if Spanish officials did not work to curb Indian attacks or refrain from harboring escaped slaves. Nor could the Confederation government prevent the landing of convicts that the British Government continued to export to its former colonies. In addition, the Articles did not allow Congress sufficient authority to enforce provisions of the 1783 Treaty of Paris that allowed British creditors to sue debtors for pre-Revolutionary debts, an unpopular clause that many state governments chose to ignore. Consequently, British forces continued to occupy forts in the Great Lakes region. These problems, combined with the Confederation government’s ineffectual response to Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts, convinced national leaders that a more powerful central government was necessary. This led to the Constitutional Convention that formulated the current Constitution of the United States.

The Articles were thus inept in terms of their ability to reign in the states in the conduct of actions that are rightly unsuited to member states of a sovereign nation.  Thus for whatever they were good for, they weren't good for establishing a fitting relationship between the nation and its members; that is, they weren't good for creating a united set of states that function collaboratively as a nation.  Insofar as they "missed the boat" in that regard, it really doesn't matter in what dimensions they succeeded.  That is the one thing above all others that they needed to do and that they did not, and everyone who mattered and cared about the nation's enduring sovereignty, not just liberals, knew it; thus they were trashed.


----------



## Ringel05 (Mar 16, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> The liberals of that time were not the "liberals" of our time.  See "Classical Liberalism".
> 
> The Founders intentionally limited federal authority.  Also, the "Democrat-Republican Party" was formed to oppose the Federalist Party, which favored a strong central government as do our current-day "liberals".
> 
> The Republican Party was not formed until 1854.


Supporters of TJ started the Republican party (also known as the Jefferson Republicans) in 1792, it was a relative loose affiliation of anti-federalists (the original states righters).  It morphed into the Democratic-Republican party which was the direct antecedent of the Democratic party.


----------



## usmbguest5318 (Mar 16, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Why add to the confusion?  Most people these days have all the education of a fruit bat.  Teach them.
> ...


In a word, no.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Xelor said:


> everyone who mattered and cared about the nation's enduring sovereignty, not just liberals, knew it; thus they were trashed.


 if everyone knew it why did no one want to amend the Articles?? And why was there huge fight over radification? Did Patrick Henry matter?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Xelor said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



if you use today's definitions the reader does not have to know definitions through times and places.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Ringel05 said:


> Supporters of TJ started the Republican party (also known as the Jefferson Republicans) in 1792, it was a relative loose affiliation of anti-federalists (the original states righters).  It morphed into the Democratic-Republican party which was the direct antecedent of the Democratic party.



correct, but you mean antecedent of Republican Party- same name and philosophy


----------



## usmbguest5318 (Mar 16, 2018)

Ringel05 said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > The liberals of that time were not the "liberals" of our time.  See "Classical Liberalism".
> ...


True enough the ancestral foundations of the Democratic Party; however, philosophically, D-Rs preferred a decentralized federal government.  Additionally, it's very important to note that today's GOP isn't at all the GOP of the 19th century.  Republicans of that era were the liberals and Democrats were the conservatives.  

While the party names go unchanged for ages, the high level political philosophy they've each embraced has shifted.  It would not surprise me were they to shift again.  To wit, some of Trump's social stances resemble those of 19th to mid-20th century Democrats and some of them resemble Republican stances from periods within the same era.


----------



## usmbguest5318 (Mar 16, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> > everyone who mattered and cared about the nation's enduring sovereignty, not just liberals, knew it; thus they were trashed.
> ...





EdwardBaiamonte said:


> why did no one want to amend the Articles??


Why do policies that we all know should today be implemented not get implemented?  The same forces that today impede implementation of myriad policies and statutes -- money and influence -- were at work then.  All that differs is the specific policies, not how money and influence combine to produce inactivity or greatly watered down legislative action(s).  

Times have changed, but the human condition and its manifestations have not.  Consequently it was no less difficult then to overcome the "worst" elements of the human condition than it is now.


----------



## Ringel05 (Mar 16, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Supporters of TJ started the Republican party (also known as the Jefferson Republicans) in 1792, it was a relative loose affiliation of anti-federalists (the original states righters).  It morphed into the Democratic-Republican party which was the direct antecedent of the Democratic party.
> ...


Not the modern Republican party per se.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Xelor said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


 what is important is to identify which group supported freedom and which supported govt. This is main issue of human history. Republicans of 19th century changed a lot over century so your generalization is meaningless.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Xelor said:


> Why do policies that we all know should today be implemented not get implemented?



because of liberals,  they are the disease of human history, and???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Ringel05 said:


> Not the modern Republican party per se.



Jefferson and modern Republicans support/supported limited govt. Bernie/Hillary/Elizebeth are opposite and communist,


----------



## usmbguest5318 (Mar 16, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


If the reader wants to participate in a discussion about history, it is incumbent on him/her to arrive well informed to the discussion.   Moreover, insofar as the 18th century stances of Jeffersonians, Hamiltonians, Madisonians, etc. -- Federalists and Anti-Federalists -- is the stuff of basic high school American history instruction in the U.S., one writing on political and governance matters of that period can reasonably assume that his/her audience has mastered the distinctions between them and compose his/her remarks in consequence of as much.


----------



## usmbguest5318 (Mar 16, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> > Why do policies that we all know should today be implemented not get implemented?
> ...


Okay, fine.  I see now you have as your aim for this thread the creation of a platform from which you can toss various castigatory remarks at liberals rather than to have have a substantive philosophical discussion about the in-/adequacy of the Articles, which, from the lack of rigor and accuracy in your OP, I should have sussed from square one.  It's fine that you want to do that, but I don't care be to be party to such a discussion.  Have fun with whomever is willing to echo your aspersions or who will trade opposing ones with you.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Xelor said:


> If the reader wants to participate in a discussion about history, it is incumbent on him/her to arrive well informed to the discussion.   Moreover, insofar as the 18th century stances of Jeffersonians, Hamiltonians, Madisonians, etc. -- Federalists and Anti-Federalists -- is the stuff of basic high school American history instruction in the U.S., one writing on political and governance matters of that period can reasonably assume that his/her audience has mastered the distinctions between them and compose his/her remarks in consequence of as much.



pompous ass air headed gibberish. Most cant name the current president and vice president. To save the country from liberalism we must teach them too.


----------



## Ringel05 (Mar 16, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Not the modern Republican party per se.
> ...


You're being much too generalized, both modern parties are a composite of earlier platforms to differing degrees.  Yes the modern Democratic party is much more federalist but the Republicans aren't specifically heavily states rights/limited government except in certain issues, much past legislation is proof of that.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Xelor said:


> to have have a substantive philosophical discussion about the in-/adequacy of the Articles,



dear, issue about articles and Constitution was freedom versus govt. Once you learn that you are in a position to understand that history in context from Aristotle/Plato to today. Now do you understand?


----------



## Ringel05 (Mar 16, 2018)

Xelor said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Xelor said:
> ...


He's been like that since he joined, rational discussion is not his strong suit, he's more rdean in his approach.


----------



## usmbguest5318 (Mar 16, 2018)

Xelor said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Xelor said:
> ...





Ringel05 said:


> He's been like that since he joined, rational discussion is not his strong suit, he's more rdean in his approach.


I didn't know that, but I do know that he now no longer obtains my notice.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Ringel05 said:


> but the Republicans aren't specifically heavily states rights/limited government except in certain issues, much past legislation is proof of that.



What?? William Buckely, Jr. voted for every Republican candidate because they were more for freedom from central govt. Even Trump passed a huge tax cut and deregulated to trim central govt!! This goes straight to back to Jefferson and Aristotle, the first Republican.Now do you understand?


----------



## Ringel05 (Mar 16, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > but the Republicans aren't specifically heavily states rights/limited government except in certain issues, much past legislation is proof of that.
> ...


Issues.......  Specific issues.......  Individuals, specific individuals......  I said that.......


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Ringel05 said:


> He's been like that since he joined, rational discussion is not his strong suit,.


  if true you would be so afraid to present  an example of irrational to make your point. What does your fear teach you?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Ringel05 said:


> Issues.......  Specific issues.......  Individuals, specific individuals......  I said that.......


what?????


----------



## Ringel05 (Mar 16, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > He's been like that since he joined, rational discussion is not his strong suit,.
> ...


That response is all the proof needed.......  rdean.......


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Ringel05 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


----------



## Ringel05 (Mar 16, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Issues.......  Specific issues.......  Individuals, specific individuals......  I said that.......
> ...


I see reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits either......  But I already knew that......


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Ringel05 said:


> That response is all the proof needed.......  rdean.......



for 3rd time:   if true you would be so afraid to present  an example of irrational to make your point. What does your fear teach you?


----------



## Ringel05 (Mar 16, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > That response is all the proof needed.......  rdean.......
> ...


Take your Thorazine.......


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Ringel05 said:


> Take your Thorazine.......



for 4th time: if true you would be so afraid to present an example of "irrational" to make your point. What does your fear teach you?

PS: off your meds insults are the oldest most common insults of all on internet. Congrats that you find them meaningful as an adultl!


----------



## Ringel05 (Mar 16, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Repeating a demand for proof that you would simply deny or explain away would be an exercise in frustration and futility on my part as I learned long ago not to argue with demagogues.......


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2018)

Ringel05 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


conservatives are demogogues becuase they are smarter than you? ever see a conservative have to run from a debate? what does that teach you?


----------



## Ringel05 (Mar 16, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Since when did I stipulate Republicans/conservatives only......?  rdean.......


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Mar 16, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> wrong of course. Jefferson and Madison formed Republican Party in 1792. Democratic-Republican Party was not formed until next century. Sorry to rock your world.



My apologies.  You are correct on the early state of that party.  Senility is creeping in.


----------



## regent (Mar 25, 2018)

We might do better using the terms liberal and conservative. We should also recognize that we in America were building a nation in a period of vast changes taking place in America and Europe. Those changes would be centered about new perspectives on  people, governments and science. 




















t


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 24, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> The Bill of Rights is not an expansive document, but a restrictive one.



yes the fear of liberal central govt was so great that a Bill of Rights was passed to severely limit central govt power, but it was not enough to confine govt to the enumerated powers and thus today we have an ever growing govt no matter how much it has already grown.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 24, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > wrong of course. Jefferson and Madison formed Republican Party in 1792. Democratic-Republican Party was not formed until next century. Sorry to rock your world.
> ...


and more importantly please keep in mind that Jefferson's Republican Party was based on limited govt just like the modern Republican Party. The Democratic idea of big govt is in no way connected to our founding principles


----------



## regent (May 25, 2018)

[/QUOTE]
You are absolutely correct. the new American government was not created for limited government. 
George's monarchy was created for the king and noble class and not the serfs. The framers were done with that type of government so they created a limited government to avoid the monarch types of governments. Later, as liberals grew secure with their   government they increased the aid to the serfs through laws and aid. Today the serfs still vote liberal, and the noble class vote Republican. One only has to read the Declaration of Independence to get an idea of what the liberals had in mind for their government.





4


----------



## Natural Citizen (Jun 8, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > The liberals of that time were not the "liberals" of our time.  See "Classical Liberalism".
> ...



Today's definitions technically remain the same. Liberalism is the most misuded term in our political lexicon. I cringe every time I see someone call someone else a liberal. Or a conservative for that matter.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Jun 8, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> It mostly was it seems. The Articles had been a huge success at limiting central govt. They contained amendment procedures, to amend the Articles, but every time the liberals tried to use them to expand the power of the central govt they failed. That is when they finally gave up and went outside the ratification process and subversively called their own convention. Who showed up? Liberals who wanted to expand the power of central govt. As soon as the conservatives saw how dangerous the new Constitution was [ Jefferson and Madison, mostly] they formed the Republican Party in 1792 to fight against liberal big govt, and Republicans have been carrying on the battle ever since.



A good read would be "Instructions of the Inhabitants of Malden, Massachusetts to their Representatives in Congress" -  May 27, 1776

Similarly, the  "Essex Result" (report of the 1778 Convention)


----------



## Natural Citizen (Jun 8, 2018)

One thing is for sure, the anti-federalsts were correct in so many of their predictions.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 8, 2018)

Natural Citizen said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



The same as what?  Modern-day "liberals" have nothing in common with the classical liberalism of the late 18th Century, save for some requisitioned terminology..


----------



## Natural Citizen (Jun 9, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



They're statists. Not liberal. As are most so-called conservatives in America today.

Libreralism is good conservatism. Statism is statism any way you slice it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 9, 2018)

Natural Citizen said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Natural Citizen said:
> ...




Trump just massively cut taxes to cut the state !! Donald is anti state and we love him!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 9, 2018)

Natural Citizen said:


> One thing is for sure, the anti-federalsts were correct in so many of their predictions.


yes had Federalists not told so many lies Constitution never would have been ratified.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Jun 9, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Trump just massively cut taxes to cut the state !! Donald is anti state and we love him!



Well, no, it was a tax increase. It's a gradual one which won't be realized until its full effect in about 7 years.

They adopted chained cpi into the bill. 

But whuheva. That's another topic.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 9, 2018)

Natural Citizen said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > It mostly was it seems. The Articles had been a huge success at limiting central govt. They contained amendment procedures, to amend the Articles, but every time the liberals tried to use them to expand the power of the central govt they failed. That is when they finally gave up and went outside the ratification process and subversively called their own convention. Who showed up? Liberals who wanted to expand the power of central govt. As soon as the conservatives saw how dangerous the new Constitution was [ Jefferson and Madison, mostly] they formed the Republican Party in 1792 to fight against liberal big govt, and Republicans have been carrying on the battle ever since.
> ...



what would we learn from these?


----------



## Natural Citizen (Jun 9, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> what would we learn from these?



Truth rather than conjecture.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 9, 2018)

Natural Citizen said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > what would we learn from these?
> ...


can you be specific??


----------



## Natural Citizen (Jun 9, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




We are established as a coumpound Republic.

Here. I'll copypasta one of my personal pdf files for reference to what it was that the people of the time wanted. And accomplished. Sorry, I don;t feel like formatting it to fit in a web page.

Principle 6 of the 12 basic principles of the traditional American philosophy of government....


*A Principle of The Traditional American Philosophy*

*6. Decentralized Government*

". . . true barriers [bulwarks] of our liberty in this country are our State governments . . ." (Thomas Jefferson, 1811
letter to Destutt de Tracy)

*The Principle
*
1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that
decentralization of governmental power, to the maximum
practicable extent, is essential to the security of Man's
God-given, unalienable rights.


*Man's Unalienable Rights and "States Rights" Doubly
Protected*

2. It asserts that these rights are most securely protected by a
federated system of government--consisting of a central
government (a Republic) and State governments (each a
Republic). Under this system, the whole quantity of
governmental power is not only limited by written
Constitution, Federal and State, but also decentralized so that
the vast majority of powers are kept on the State and local
levels. The correct definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally
limited government of the representative type, created by a
written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable
(from its original meaning) by them only by amendment--with
its powers divided between three separate branches:
Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The American system is "a
compound Republic"--a federation, or combination, of central
and State Republics--under which: "The different governments
will control each other . . . ," while within each Republic there
are two safeguarding features: (a) a division of powers, as well
as (b) a system of checks and balances between separate
departments: "Hence a double security arises to the rights of
the people." (The Federalist, number 51, by Madison.)

*
Greater Quantity of Power Retained by Each State*

3. By far the greater quantity and variety of power was
retained by the government of each State when the United
States Constitution was framed and adopted in 1787-1788.
Only a comparatively small part of each State's power was
delegated by its people to the new central, or Federal,
government--chiefly the powers concerning "war, peace,
negotiation and foreign commerce" (per The Federalist,
number 45 by Madison). This delegated-power
government--the central Republic--was granted few and
limited powers; while each State's government is a full-power
Republic under the State Constitution, subject to its
restrictions, also to that grant, and to the few restrictions
specified expressly in the United States Constitution as
applying to the governments of the States.


*"Home Rule" the Basic, Controlling Principle*

4. This federated system of decentralized power is a chief
characteristic of the American governmental arrangements.
This is in keeping with the controlling intent of those who
framed and adopted each of its Amendments. The main aim
was to preserve maximum "Home Rule" by the States, to keep
the greatest feasible quantity of power as close as possible to
the source--the people--where they can best watch it alertly
so as to check and prevent its abuse or misuse, as well as to
prevent its unsound, or unnecessary, expansion, to the peril or
perhaps doom of their liberties.


*Economic Liberty and Decentralized Government*

5. Such decentralized government is favorable, indeed
essential, to America's traditional philosophy and system of
economic liberty--the inseparable and indispensable economic
aspect of the indivisible whole of Individual Liberty-
Responsibility. This includes the system of individual, private,
competitive enterprise (called Individual Enterprise--the term
used by President Jefferson in his 1801 Annual Message to
Congress). This system features a free-market economy--free
from Government-over-Man controls, although subject to just
regulation as authorized by the Constitution's pertinent
provisions) under just laws expressive of "just powers" (to use
the term of the Declaration of Independence) designed to
protect the equal rights of all Individuals and thus to
safeguard sound competition--which gives full play to
individual initiative inspired by the incentive of economic
liberty of The Individual and is a main characteristic of the
traditional American philosophy. This right is not a goal or
end, in and of itself, but a necessary means, and it is an
essential and main support of Man's unalienable rights. It
involves freedom of choice by both producer-seller and
consumer-buyer, subject always to the potently persuasive
influence of community opinion and standards in the sound
environment of an ethical society which emphasizes the duty
factor of Individual Liberty-Responsibility, including due
respect for the equal rights of others. This means that the
central government is limited strictly to the consistent role of
mere regulation (not control) to those ends--regulation as
limited by the Constitution. This excludes any control by the
central government directly or indirectly of the whole or any
part of the national economy, which includes all of the
people's economic activities.
The free-market economy is controlled by the people as a
whole through their acting as buyers and sellers--a multitude
of Individuals generally acting individually as both buyer and
seller of things or services a number of times each day in the
ordinary course of life's daily activities, involving transactions
great or small--through their exercise of freedom of choice
daily, even hourly; for example, the free-market economy is
both a result and instrument of the exercise of this freedom of
Individuals--not a mechanistic, independently operating
"Thing" which oppressively controls human beings.

*
Sample Warnings by The Founders*

6. The American people and their leaders in 1776-1787 were
determined that the central government should never be
allowed to possess power to act, or be permitted to act, as a
"consolidated" government with sovereign, unlimited power
over all of the people and things in the country. Vigilant friends
of Individual Liberty, including for example leaders such as
Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton and
James Madison, warned repeatedly and emphatically against
the danger of ever permitting such a government to exist in
America.


*Samuel Adams' Opinion*

7. Samuel Adams, firebrand patriot-leader always in the lead
for both American Independence and Man's Liberty against
Government-over-Man, expressed fear in this regard in 1789
(letter to Richard Henry Lee) in keeping with his never varying
sentiments. He said that he feared misinterpretation of the
Constitution would bring about fully centralized (consolidated)
power in the Federal government at the expense of the States
and "sink both in despotism."


*Hamilton's Opinion*

8. In the New York Ratifying Convention in 1788, Hamilton
warned sharply that the States' powers reserved under the
Constitution must be safeguarded for the sake of Individual
Liberty and that Congress would never fail to safeguard them:
". . . unless they become madmen."


*Hamilton and Madison in "The Federalist"*

9. This sound line of thought was stressed by Hamilton and
Madison, in their joint report in The Federalist (for example,
numbers 17 and 28 by Hamilton, and 45 and 46 by Madison),
recording the intent of the 1787 Framing Convention as
expressed in the Constitution. The foregoing sentiments of
these leaders were shared by their fellow leaders and the
American people in general of that day--as reflecting truly
American principles--and by Jefferson second to none.


*Jefferson's Opinion*

10. In his First Inaugural Address as President, Jefferson
stated that the State governments are "the surest bulwarks
against anti-republican tendencies"--that is, tendencies which
conflict with the American form of government: a Republic. He
stated in a letter to Destutt de Tracy (1811): "But the true
barriers [bulwarks] of our liberty in this country are our State
governments . . ." With regard to the people's freedom from
Government-over-Man controls by the Federal government, in
keeping with the Constitution's limits on that government's
power, Jefferson stated in his Annual Message to Congress, in
1801: "Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation,
the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when
left most free to individual enterprise." In the above-
mentioned 1811 letter, Jefferson also discussed the
prospective use of the Militia of the States--all acting
together--to resist the forces of any Federal usurpers acting in
violation of the Constitution to oppress or dominate the people
or government of any State.


*Some Peaceable Remedies of the People Against an Offending Federal Government*

11. Some of the peaceable remedies of the people of any State
against what they consider to be anti-Constitution, or
otherwise offensive, conduct by the Federal government--by
any of its Branches, or by all of them combined--as
contemplated by the Convention which framed the
Constitution, were specified in The Federalist number 46 by
Madison, with silent acquiescence of his co-author Hamilton,
as follows:

"On the other hand, should an unwarrantable
measure of the federal government be unpopular in
particular states, which would seldom fail to be the
case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which
may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition
to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the
people, their repugnance and perhaps refusal to
co-operate with the officers of the union, the frowns
of the executive magistracy [officials] of the state,
the embarrassments created by legislative devices,
which would often be added on such occasions,
would oppose in any state difficulties not to be
despised; would form in a large state very serious
impediments, and where the sentiments of several
adjoining states happened to be in union, would
present obstructions which the federal government
would hardly be willing to encounter."
The most extremely "unwarrantable measure" is an
unconstitutional measure. Madison here expressed the
understanding also of those who framed the Constitution and
of their fellow leaders in the State Ratifying Conventions as
well as of the people in general--all extremely jealous of their
hard-won liberties and determined to act vigorously against
any danger to them from the greatly feared, central
government if it should ever threaten to over-step the limits
imposed on its powers under the constitution, as amended.
Protests by State legislatures against what they would
consider to be abuses of power or usurpations, potential or
actual, by the central government were of course included as a
main element in what Madison referred to her as "legislative
devices . . . impediments . . . obstructions." Actual examples
occurring afterward are the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions
of 1798 and the Hartford Convention Resolutions of 1815
(discussed in Principle 3, Pars. 5-6). Some additional remedies
of the people, of a peaceable nature, are political action--use
of the ballot in elections--and amendment of the Constitution
by the people (Art. V); while impeachment by Congress of any
officials guilty of acting as defaulting public trustees is
provided for (Art. I, Sec. 2,3).

*
State's Self-defense by Force, in Last Resort, per "The Federalist"*

12. With regard to use by the States of force--use of their
Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing
arms)--in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to
oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation
of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, Hamilton and
Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist
(numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison) the assumption
and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall
their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces. This
understanding of The Framers was shared by the members of
the State Ratifying Conventions and the leaders and people in
general of that day--all fearless foes of any and all enemies of
Free Man in America. They believed that all true Americans
must be ready to fight and die for Liberty, especially against
tyrannical Federal officials who, as usurpers, violate not only
the Constitution but also their oath of office: to support the
Constitution only. It was also contemplated that any
non-military force used by the Federal usurpers would be
countered by the States' use of their own non-military forces:
Sheriff's posses (posses comitatus) and any civilian police
forces. (See also Par. 12 of Principle 5.)


*The Civil over The Military*

13. The traditional American philosophy requires, as a
fundamental of the system of checks and balances, that The
Civil must always be in complete control of The Military. The
Founders and their fellow Americans were painfully aware of
the lesson of history that large standing armies are, in
peacetime, potentially dangerous to the people's liberties. In
1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, for example, made
this clear in these words: ". . . that standing armies in time of
peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in
all cases the military should be under strict subordination to,
and governed by, the civil power." Another, related element in
the system of checks and balances is the requirement of the
Constitution (Article VI) that all Federal officials--both civil and
military--take an oath to support the Constitution [only]; with
the result that all military officers, thus controlled
fundamentally and supremely by the Constitution, must be
obedient to the civil authority--chief of all the President--but
only as to orders which are not violative of the Constitution.
The Military are, therefore, obligated by the Constitution not
only to refuse to obey any orders of Federal usurpers--
automatically made by the Constitution itself null and void
from the start--but to support the Constitution only, at all
times and under all circumstances, as the sovereign people's
fundamental law. State officials, civil and military, are likewise
so required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the
United States--meaning, in part, to resist Federal usurpers by
all necessary means: by force in last resort.


The Conclusion

14. The truly American formula, in accordance with the
traditional philosophy, for sound and enduring
self-government by means of constitutionally limited
government with adequate protection assured for Individual


*Liberty, is this: Limited and Decentralized for Liberty!!!*


----------



## Natural Citizen (Jun 9, 2018)

One of the finest pieces of literature ever written on the topic (and much, much, more) is 'The American Ideal Of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles'  by Hamilton Abert Long.

I'll offer the preface here. Otherwise, do or do not read it. It's your loss, no mine.

*
Publisher’s Note About The Book*

(From the cover jacket. Note: The author was the publisher.)

The sole unifying influence spiritually, only common
denominator--for all Americans of all races, colors, religions,
creeds, ethnic origins, ages--is The American Ideal of 1776:
the subject of the book.

This Ideal’s definition--in the Declaration of Independence, in
essence--is spelled out in this unique book as an indivisible
whole: The Twelve Basic American Principles. This is 1776
Americanism.

*Intelligent choice--between 1776 Americanism and
conflicting Isms (chiefly Socialism in the USA today)--requires
primarily thorough knowledge of these Principles. Not to
know them is to cheat oneself of the basic freedom: freedom
of choice, between alternatives.*


Making this grave choice daily is inescapable for every adult
citizen (by acts of omission or commission, *or by opinion-
forming*), confronted by problems of self-governing,
performing duties of Liberty-Responsibility, to which The
Twelve Principles are always pertinent.

This is the only book in existence which enables every
self-governing citizen to gain the needed knowledge of the
whole of these Principles, never before thus defined, not
taught in schools or colleges. Written for all Americans for all
time, this fundamental book fills a critical need for young and
old alike, will continue to do so for centuries.

Working to make the 1776 Ideal effective governmentally, to
preserve it for Posterity, is the imperative duty of every
citizen. The book is the essential tool for all who wish to be
worthy trustees for today’s children and future generations of
their just heritage: this Ideal, its eternal values and the
supporting Constitution, as The Founders intended. They
believed to default about this is to betray.

A lifetime source-book, it is invaluable for home and office
use, most importantly for everyone who seeks to offer others
guidance about this basic subject--particularly all civic and
public-opinion

The Founders’ writings are the basis of the book’s Twelve
Principles--like them, never changing. The book will therefore
never need change, will be as valid and useful a century from
now as during the Twin-Bicentennial Decade: 1976-1987 (the
200th anniversary of the framing of the Constitution). It’s
dependable scholarship is certified by eminent authorities’
commendations.

No scholar has faulted it.

(75,000 hard-cover copies in print; 3rd printing 1976)


----------



## joaquinmiller (Jun 10, 2018)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



He cut revenue, not spending.  You think that's anti-state?   You're joking, right?


----------

