Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Tea Party, because of its dysfunctional nature and inability to corral the less reputable elements, has done a great job in diminishing, marginalizing, discrediting, and demonizing itself. Both left and right wing media have been effective in doing so. The Tea Party is obviously not the answer.
The answer is common civic virtue, in which a multitude of Americans exercise thoughtfully their voting rights to elect good, effective legislators. That has not happened in a long time.
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.
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.
Teddy Roosevelt didn't start this idea, it was started with Hamilton and our first president, Washington and concerned the bank, tariffs, and a host of issues. Hamilton said the government must have the means adequate to its ends. Where, for example, was it written that government must help business, but laws were passed in the Washington adminisration doing just that. Then the Marshall Court, beginning with the second president, Adams, deciding the Supreme Court had the power to decide what the constitution meant, but nowhere was this deciding power given to the Court in the constitution. They just decided it on their very own. Even Jefferson the strict interpreter of the constitution bought Louisiana clearly not authorized by the constitution. And on and on.
First, the Constitution does give the deciding power to the SC. I refer you to Article 3, Section 2.
What you are saying is that the founding fathers, the men who wrote and enacted the Constitution, did not agree with your interpretation.
No, I am saying that the writers of the constitution failed to designate in the constitution that the Supreme Court was to decide the constitutionality of laws, acts of the congress, states or the executive. The wording for that power is simply not in the constitution. The Court under Marshall decided that in the most famous court case, Marbury v. Madison.
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
I further believe this is likely the last generation in America who will have the ability to accomplish that.
I again refer you to Article 3, Section 2. It is not unclear. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,..." Marbury simply clarified that language, it did not create the authority.
As one of the primary FFs, Hamilton, said in the federalist papers:
The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
I again refer you to Article 3, Section 2. It is not unclear. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,..." Marbury simply clarified that language, it did not create the authority.
As one of the primary FFs, Hamilton, said in the federalist papers:
The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Hamilton was a bootlicking statist who wanted to make George Washington a king. He desired exactly the kind of government we have now, as opposed to the limited government the rest of the Founding Fathers fought and died for.
His opinion doesn't impress me one lick.
I again refer you to Article 3, Section 2. It is not unclear. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,..." Marbury simply clarified that language, it did not create the authority.
As one of the primary FFs, Hamilton, said in the federalist papers:
The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Hamilton was a bootlicking statist who wanted to make George Washington a king. He desired exactly the kind of government we have now, as opposed to the limited government the rest of the Founding Fathers fought and died for.
His opinion doesn't impress me one lick.
I don't think that arguing it should be legal, by federal standards, to put people in stocks for heresy or burn people for being witches is going to help you here.
I also don't think the founders were all of one mind, so whenever I see 'the founders believed in this or that' it annoys me. There's also no way to know how any of the founders would react to our current circumstances. The country and the world are far too different from the founding of the country. Who knows but that some of the founders would agree with how things have progressed?
Finally, the idea that because things aren't being run the way you (or even the founders) would prefer does NOT mean that the people are no longer in control. No individual is representative of all the people of the United States. One person being dissatisfied does not mean the government has failed. It would be more accurate to say that you disagree with the country the people have given themselves.
My goal here is not to earn pats on th back but to get the story straight. The Founders knew about the colonial theocracies. And they knew that if the federal government forbade them, the people had no freedom at all. There is no freedom when the government tells you what you can and cannot do in your own society. The Founders also believed that people with their God given rights secured would eventually get around to doing the right thing. Thus, the theocracies dissolved. The witch burnings and other such atrocities ceased in the face of strong public opinion against them.
I'm sorry, but isn't telling people what they can and cannot do EXACTLY the purpose of government? Not that the government makes the rules, but that it enforces whatever rules a given society agrees upon? (let's just deal with societies in which the people have say in government). You seem to be advocating, and claiming the founders advocated, anarchy.
No one is going to be completely free. That's just life. However, there certainly are degrees of freedom. Not allowing state-run theocracies =/= total loss of freedom.
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 USA was founded using very noble sentiments.
But read its history and you find that we, much like every other nation, say noble things, but do not remotely live up to that noble rhetoric.
I think we used to be the best nation on earth to live if one happened to be a White Christian male of European descent.
Of course that's not saying much when you look at the competition.
Well, whatever it used to be, its not that anymore.
I further believe this is likely the last generation in America who will have the ability to accomplish that.
I doubt any generation ever had that ability.
The CSA's spectacular failure seems to indicate that as but one example of this government crushing any who would challenge the authority of its elite class.
From "Abraham Lincoln, [September 16-17, 1859] (Notes for Speech in Kansas and Ohio)," Page 2.In September 1859 Lincoln gave several speeches to Ohio Republicans, and on February 27, 1860, he spoke at Cooper Union in New York City. A Search on Ohio speech provides the notes Lincoln used for his 1859 engagements. The notes articulate Lincoln's policy on slavery, and his positions on popular sovereignty and the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision.
"We must not disturb slavery in the states where it exists, because the Constitution, and the peace of the country both forbid us — We must not withhold an efficient fugitive slave law, because the constitution demands it —
But we must, by a national policy, prevent the spread of slavery into new territories, or free states, because the constitution does not forbid us, and the general welfare does demand such prevention — We must prevent the revival of the African slave trade, because the constitution does not forbid us, and the general welfare does require the prevention — We must prevent these things being done, by either congresses or courts — The people — the people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses, and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it —"
http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/connections/abraham-lincoln-papers/history3.html
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.
The examples you are providing predated the Constitution.
How do you think the founders expected to secure our rights if they thought the states were free to take away those rights?
I continue to return to my question. What is it you are proposing? The federal government clearly does not agree with you. It has never agreed with you. What you are saying is counter to established law in this country. So what are you suggesting be done?
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 issue is not mistaking the terms freedom and liberty as the same.
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
Are you really this stupid? Have you ever read the Constitution?
The issue is not mistaking the terms freedom and liberty as the same.
"Liberty" and "freedom" mean exactly the same thing, Fakey.
No sensible person wants to go back to world where women and minorities did not have the liberties and freedoms of white males, Foxfyre. That world of Washington or TR et al is not desirable in the 21st century.
