A government of the people, by the people, for the people

[Lonestar_logic]

Do you believe the USA is a government of the people, by the people, for the people? I once did. I do not believe it is that now. And to correct that situation I propose the following Resolution:

WHEREAS: The Founders of the great United States of America intended that this nation be the first in the history of the world to have a free people who would govern themselves free of the dictates of Monarch, Pope, or any other central government authority, and

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to secure the God given rights of the people and otherwise leave them alone to form whatever sort of societies they wished to have, and

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to strictly limit the powers of those elected or appointed to federal office, and

WHEREAS: The government has assumed powers the Constitution does not allow and that the Founders never intended a central government to have,

BE IT THEREFORE ACKNOWLEDGED that in order to preserve this great nation as the Founders intended that it be, the people must rise up and condemn and replace those in government who confiscate property that the Constitution does not authorize, that spend the people's money in ways that the Constitution does not authorize, and that obligate future generations with debt that the Constitution does not authorize.

* * * * * *​

I further believe this is likely the last generation in America who will have the ability to accomplish that.

Agree or Disagree

The Constitution makes no mention of god..or god given rights.

No but He was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and also mentioned in all of the 50 states Constitutions.

 

[Sallow]

Do you believe the USA is a government of the people, by the people, for the people? I once did. I do not believe it is that now. And to correct that situation I propose the following Resolution:

WHEREAS: The Founders of the great United States of America intended that this nation be the first in the history of the world to have a free people who would govern themselves free of the dictates of Monarch, Pope, or any other central government authority, and

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to secure the God given rights of the people and otherwise leave them alone to form whatever sort of societies they wished to have, and

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to strictly limit the powers of those elected or appointed to federal office, and

WHEREAS: The government has assumed powers the Constitution does not allow and that the Founders never intended a central government to have,

BE IT THEREFORE ACKNOWLEDGED that in order to preserve this great nation as the Founders intended that it be, the people must rise up and condemn and replace those in government who confiscate property that the Constitution does not authorize, that spend the people's money in ways that the Constitution does not authorize, and that obligate future generations with debt that the Constitution does not authorize.

* * * * * *​

I further believe this is likely the last generation in America who will have the ability to accomplish that.

Agree or Disagree

The Constitution makes no mention of god..or god given rights.

No but He was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and also mentioned in all of the 50 states Constitutions.

That may well be.

But Federal law is not derived from state constitutions or the Declaration.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, he's saying that the founding fathers did not agree with this interpretation after it was safely ratified. Their positions pre and post ratification are largely two different things, which is the problem.

The Founders never intended that the Supreme Court or any other Court have the ability to make law or establish policy of any kind. The purpose of the court at all levels was to strictly interpret the intent of the law as it existed, as it was passed by the people or their representatives.

The Founders would be absolutely horrified at what has become of our court system all the way through the Supreme Court. But they also knew that judges could and would err which is why they wrote into the Constitution a provision for removing an errant justice from the high court. They would not have hesitated to do so. It is unfortunate that we now look to SCOTUS as some kind of God with jurisdiction to dictate to us all.

And this may be the last generation with the power to fix that too.

And yet it was one of the founders who appointed John Marshall who claimed that power for the court.

Really? I recall Marshall being a powerful advocate for the High Court NOT having authority to make law. What specifically are you referring to?

 

[PratchettFan]

No, the military is a Constitutional responsibility of Congress for the purpose of securing our rights--preventing anyone from taking away those rights.

And please try to to focus on the federal government here. Whatever government entities the people put into place at the state, county, and local levels is not the subject of this thread. It is important to make a distinction between various government entities.

I am attempting to focus on this concept of a "freedom loving people" who wish to "govern themselves". I assume from this that you have no problem with the government forcing people to embrace or tolerate and to confiscate property, so long as that is done at the state level.

Under the Constitution, the Congress makes the laws, the executive branch applies the laws and the SC resolve any conflicts. All of the members of Congress have been legally elected, in accordance with the Constitution, as has the President. All of the members of the SC have been appointed in accordance with the Constitution. So it would seem what we currently have meets your definition of a freedom loving people governing themselves, in accordance with the Constitution.

So I have to ask again, what exactly is it you are proposing?

The state and local government is assumed to be social contract agreed to by the majority of the people. There is much to be debated on the scope of such government, but the Founders assumed no authority over that so long as the local governments infringed on the rights of nobody else. In other words the Commonwealth of Massuchusetts would have no ability to force its idea of good, evil, right, wrong, justice, injustice on the other states. And if the people of a state wanted a Puritanical theocracy, they could have that. If they wanted a wild, wooly hellfire society, they could have that.

The Founders believe there was no freedom at all if people had no ability to get it wrong, to make mistakes, to do it poorly. And they also believed in the vritue of freedom that a free people would eventually work out the problems and injustices and would get it right. But it was their life to live. Their choices to make. And the federal government would have no power over that.

It is assumed to be a social contract? I fail to see how it is any more of a social contract than the federal government, nor do I see a distinction of power imposed simply because of the source of the power.

Clearly the founding fathers did have a problem with state governments doing what they pleased. A state cannot take away your freedom of speech or religion, it can't imprison you without trial, it can't hang you up by your thumbs and roast you over a slow fire. At no time during the entire history of the United States, including the era controlled entirely by the founders, did the federal government see itself as so constrained.

I have to go back to my original question. The federal government is in place in full accordance with the Constitution. So what exactly is it you are proposing?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Founders never intended that the Supreme Court or any other Court have the ability to make law or establish policy of any kind. The purpose of the court at all levels was to strictly interpret the intent of the law as it existed, as it was passed by the people or their representatives.

The Founders would be absolutely horrified at what has become of our court system all the way through the Supreme Court. But they also knew that judges could and would err which is why they wrote into the Constitution a provision for removing an errant justice from the high court. They would not have hesitated to do so. It is unfortunate that we now look to SCOTUS as some kind of God with jurisdiction to dictate to us all.

And this may be the last generation with the power to fix that too.

And yet it was one of the founders who appointed John Marshall who claimed that power for the court.

Really? I recall Marshall being a powerful advocate for the High Court NOT having authority to make law. What specifically are you referring to?

Marbury v. Madison

 

[whitehall]

Here's a thought, get off your ass and try to make your chosen political party more responsive to your pipe dream. Disregard the left wing attacks on the Tea Party and join up to make the GOP more conservative or disregard the stigma about communism and try make the democrat party more responsive to socialism..

The Tea Party in its purest form, and groups like it, are probably our last hope to turn this all around. That is why the Left, those lovers of authoritarian government and what benefits they believe they can generate from it, have been so diligent in their efforts to diminish, marginalize, discredit, and demonize the Tea Party, similiar grass roots movements, and any leader who might espouse the values and principles they embrace. The demonization has been largely effective because the media mostly embraces Leftists big government concepts.

But we won't turn it around by continuing to re-elect people who won't do it. We too often LIKE our own representatives while accusing everybody else's. We have to get away from that concept.

Elect enough of the right people, and it won't matter if they have an (R) or a (D) after their name.

It's still government of, by and for the people and it's too bad that the union based education system failed to teach a generation or two that the United States is the greatest form of government on the planet. If it goes bad it's our fault. Don't blame it on the politicians.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am attempting to focus on this concept of a "freedom loving people" who wish to "govern themselves". I assume from this that you have no problem with the government forcing people to embrace or tolerate and to confiscate property, so long as that is done at the state level.

Under the Constitution, the Congress makes the laws, the executive branch applies the laws and the SC resolve any conflicts. All of the members of Congress have been legally elected, in accordance with the Constitution, as has the President. All of the members of the SC have been appointed in accordance with the Constitution. So it would seem what we currently have meets your definition of a freedom loving people governing themselves, in accordance with the Constitution.

So I have to ask again, what exactly is it you are proposing?

The state and local government is assumed to be social contract agreed to by the majority of the people. There is much to be debated on the scope of such government, but the Founders assumed no authority over that so long as the local governments infringed on the rights of nobody else. In other words the Commonwealth of Massuchusetts would have no ability to force its idea of good, evil, right, wrong, justice, injustice on the other states. And if the people of a state wanted a Puritanical theocracy, they could have that. If they wanted a wild, wooly hellfire society, they could have that.

The Founders believe there was no freedom at all if people had no ability to get it wrong, to make mistakes, to do it poorly. And they also believed in the vritue of freedom that a free people would eventually work out the problems and injustices and would get it right. But it was their life to live. Their choices to make. And the federal government would have no power over that.

It is assumed to be a social contract? I fail to see how it is any more of a social contract than the federal government, nor do I see a distinction of power imposed simply because of the source of the power.

Clearly the founding fathers did have a problem with state governments doing what they pleased. A state cannot take away your freedom of speech or religion, it can't imprison you without trial, it can't hang you up by your thumbs and roast you over a slow fire. At no time during the entire history of the United States, including the era controlled entirely by the founders, did the federal government see itself as so constrained.

I have to go back to my original question. The federal government is in place in full accordance with the Constitution. So what exactly is it you are proposing?

But as the Founders saw it, the states could (and did) do all those things. The Puritan theocracy that put people in stocks for heresy was perfectly legal under federal law. The federal government was prohibited by the Constitution from doing that, but not the states. The Salem Witch trials were perfectly legal under federal law. The federal government was prohibited by the Constitution from doing that but not the states.

As it was, a free people, unhindered and unpressed by any monarch, Pope, or other central authority, voluntarily dismantled those theocracies, made the burning of witches illegal, etc. etc. etc. The point is, the federal government then, as it was intended to do, allowed the people freedom to form whatever sort of societies they wished to have.

Yes, the Constitution itself is a social contract. One that allows the federal government specific powers and was intended to prevent it from having any other powers. The federal government was to secure our rights to order our own lives as we saw fit and then leave us alone to live them. And that included not dictating what sort of social contract the states, counties, communities, or any other entity would adopt.

 

[bripat9643]

It started with Teddy Roosevelt turning the Constitution on its head when he declared the government could do anything the Constitution did not expressly forbid. Up until then, every President and Congress had gone with the Founders intent that the Constitution limited government to only what it authorized.

I do think there are enough freedom loving people left in America that we can reverse the current destruction of Constitutional intent and individual liberties. But I do think this is the last generation that will have any power to do that. It does require all of us who care to start paying attention now.

Demonstrably false. The Constitution was largely ignored the moment it was put into effect.

Using the Resolution in the OP as your guide, what did the Founders violate of the principles expressed there?

Jefferson violated it when he purchased the Louisiana territory.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And, if you were president, you would not have bought Louisiana Territory.

 

[OKTexas]

Demonstrably false. The Constitution was largely ignored the moment it was put into effect.

Using the Resolution in the OP as your guide, what did the Founders violate of the principles expressed there?

Jefferson violated it when he purchased the Louisiana territory.

I keep hearing that, yet Jefferson had the authority under the Constitution to do the negotiations and Congress appropriated the money, so where's the violation?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because no where did the Constitution give the power to the national government to acquire new territory is the argument.

It is a stupid argument: just follow Bripat for an example of stupid argumentation.

 

[bripat9643]

Using the Resolution in the OP as your guide, what did the Founders violate of the principles expressed there?

Jefferson violated it when he purchased the Louisiana territory.

I keep hearing that, yet Jefferson had the authority under the Constitution to do the negotiations and Congress appropriated the money, so where's the violation?

Where is making such purchases specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

 

[JakeStarkey]

General welfare clause takes care of it, bripat.

 

[bripat9643]

General welfare clause takes care of it, bripat.

That's exactly what the OP is arguing against, numskull. We already know you believe the government is allowed to do whatever it wants. There's no need for you to reinstate the point.

 

[Foxfyre]

Demonstrably false. The Constitution was largely ignored the moment it was put into effect.

Using the Resolution in the OP as your guide, what did the Founders violate of the principles expressed there?

Jefferson violated it when he purchased the Louisiana territory.

It is true that this was a dilemma for Jefferson as there was no Constitutional provision for federal acquisition of land. The only way it could be justified as a) it avoided a possible military confrtonation with Napoleon thus putting it within the scope of national defense (however that might have been rather contrived), and

b) The USA really needed the Port of New Orlean, unhindered by foreign control or influence, and Napoleon wouldn't sell it without us taking the rest of the territory, thus it sort of fit in with the concept of promoting the general welfare.

Anyhow, that is how they justified it. Fortunately for Jefferson, Congress approved it as did the people of the USA when they were informed of it.

So yes, that was a Constitutional violation even with the gray areas allowed. But one incident with rather extreme circumstances does not make a sea shift in concept, principles, values, or practice.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Using the Resolution in the OP as your guide, what did the Founders violate of the principles expressed there?

Jefferson violated it when he purchased the Louisiana territory.

I keep hearing that, yet Jefferson had the authority under the Constitution to do the negotiations and Congress appropriated the money, so where's the violation?

Congress granting money for something doesn't make it constitutional. Congress can violate the Constitution too.

 

[OKTexas]

Jefferson violated it when he purchased the Louisiana territory.

I keep hearing that, yet Jefferson had the authority under the Constitution to do the negotiations and Congress appropriated the money, so where's the violation?

Where is making such purchases specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

The president was granted the power to make treaties with the concurrence of congress and congress has the power of the purse to pay for the obligations of the treaty. Not a hard concept to understand.

 

[Foxfyre]

Jefferson violated it when he purchased the Louisiana territory.

I keep hearing that, yet Jefferson had the authority under the Constitution to do the negotiations and Congress appropriated the money, so where's the violation?

Congress granting money for something doesn't make it constitutional. Congress can violate the Constitution too.

Yes it can and in the case of the Louisiana Purchase had to really stretch to justify it within Constitutional parameters and probably didn't fully succeed. But again, that was an extreme situation and did not really set a precedent that altered the core principles involved.

Unfortunately, the Congress we now have probably have very few members who have ever really studied the Constitution and who give it little or no thought at all as they violate virtually ever value and principle written into it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

General welfare clause takes care of it, bripat.

That's exactly what the OP is arguing against, numskull. We already know you believe the government is allowed to do whatever it wants. There's no need for you to reinstate the point.

"the government is allowed to do whatever it wants"

Actually, you will find nothing I have ever written that suggests that, bripat

This is why the great majority of Americans want nothing to do with crazy libertarians like you

And knowing b your weakness of character, you would have bought Louisiana Territory if you had been president, bripat

 

[Foxfyre]

So far we have been able to disagree amicably and have conducted a civil discussion on a subject that is not all that easily sorted out and/or fully understood. I would very much appreciate it it if we could please keep it that way Jake (and any others who are inclined to start a food fight.)