If Jefferson founded the Republican Party what place do Democrats have in America?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Without guidance from the Constitution, these two powerful, competing visions were locked in battle.

too stupid!! The Federalists were defeated never to be heard from again until the Communist inspired New Deal

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws our country".
Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, Nov. 12th, 1816.

Of course by today's standards there were few if any corporations in Jefferson's day. And of course he never imagined corporations would carry us from a time when 98% were private farmers, to today when 98% of us work a mere 8 hour days in air conditioned offices! Nor did he realize that capitalism would regulate them to the point where they were locked in a deadly battle to raise quality and lower price to stay ahead of competition and avoid bankruptcy. Indeed, 1000's lose this battle every month and declare bankruptcy thanks to consumer regulation! In fact, a modern corporation is a virtual slave to its customers and can therefore only succeed by raising the consumer's standard of living. If you doubt this for a second please try to start a corporation yourself. Thanks to the magic of capitalism you won't make a penny until your customer would rather spend that penny on your product more than on any other product from anywhere in the world. The corporate capitalist mentality is the source of morality on earth. Liberalism is the exact opposite, it is about how to extract entitlements from the other guy rather than how to fulfill his needs

Moreover, and most importantly, Jefferson does not say the government must prohibit corporations and thus perfectly destroy our standard of living which is the highest in human history! He does very clearly say though that liberal government is the exact thing America was founded to prohibit.

Moreover, the word "corporation" to Jefferson and Adam Smith had little relationship to the word today:

The pretence that corporations are necessary for the
better government of the trade, is without any
foundation. The real and effectual discipline which is
exercised over a workman, is not that of
his corporation, but that of his customers. It is the fear
of losing their employment which restrains his frauds
and corrects his negligence. An exclusive
corporation necessarily weakens the force of this
discipline. A particular set of workmen must then be
employed, let them behave well or ill. It is upon this
account, that in many large incorporated towns no
tolerable workmen are to be found, even in some of
the most necessary trades. If you would have your
work tolerably executed, it must be done in the
suburbs, where the workmen, having no exclusive
privilege, have nothing but their character to
depend upon, and you must then smuggle it into the
town as well as you can. (p. 129) Wealth of Nations


Corporations already existed in the new nation, but these were primarily educational corporations or institutions chartered by the British crown which continued to exist after the new nation was created from the Confederation. Due to experience as British Colonies and the accompanying corporate colonialism from British corporations chartered by the crown to do business in North America, new corporations were greeted with mixed feelings. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a 1816 letter to George Logan:[5]
I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.



Mike Byron:Jefferson and Madison were so insistent upon this amendment[11th] because the American Revolution was in substantial degree a revolt against the domination of colonial economic and political life by the greatest multinational corporation of its age: the British East India Company. After all who do you think owned the tea which Sam Adams and friends dumped overboard in Boston Harbor? Who was responsible for the taxes on commodities and restrictions on trade by the American colonists? It was the British East India Company, of course.

And of course none of this takes into account that Hamilton, Jefferson's blood enemy, started a government corporation for useful manufactures or that Jefferson was born a farmer, wanted all Americans to be small farmers, and saw corporations as a threat to his agrarian lifestyle.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Between them, the broad powers to tax and spend and to regulate interstate commerce

too stupid and perfectly liberal. We know what they said and how they governed once running the country under the Constitution they wrote. The commerce clause was designed to promote free trade between states and countries!!! Welcome to your first lesson in American History!

The American Revolution was about freedom from liberal government.
What did you think it was about?

 

[Bfgrn]

I just showed you how our founding fathers GOVERNED. Now YOU show me in the Constitution where there is any mention of a free market, an invisible hand or unregulated business?

Dear, thats the whole point, it was not mentioned, it was taken for granted that the Feds would not interfere with free, natural, voluntary economic relationships. Indeed, that is exactly how the Republicans governed in 1800!!

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government" -Jefferson

Again, you ignore the reality of how our founders governed.

I also find it interesting that your quote of Jefferson exorcizes the most important qualification; the human one.

"I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter—with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The reality is closer to what Justice Hughes said, "The Constitution is what the Court say it is."

of course treasonous liberals say that because they hate the freedom the Constitution embodies. This is why they spied for Stalin

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I just showed you how our founding fathers GOVERNED. Now YOU show me in the Constitution where there is any mention of a free market, an invisible hand or unregulated business?

Dear, thats the whole point, it was not mentioned, it was taken for granted that the Feds would not interfere with free, natural, voluntary economic relationships. Indeed, that is exactly how the Republicans governed in 1800!!

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government" -Jefferson

Again, you ignore the reality of how our founders governed.

I also find it interesting that your quote of Jefferson exorcizes the most important qualification; the human one.

"I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter—with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

do you have any idea what point you are trying to make????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

Jefferson's point here is that man can't be trusted with government , so government must be kept very very limited. Thanks for making the Republican point, liberal !!!

 

[Bfgrn]

The reality is closer to what Justice Hughes said, "The Constitution is what the Court say it is."

of course treasonous liberals say that because they hate the freedom the Constitution embodies. This is why they spied for Stalin

The biggest believer in social Darwinism in the 20th century was Joseph Stalin. He would fit perfectly in today's GOP.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

 

[Brutus]

The reality is closer to what Justice Hughes said, "The Constitution is what the Court say it is."

of course treasonous liberals say that because they hate the freedom the Constitution embodies. This is why they spied for Stalin

The biggest believer in social Darwinism in the 20th century was Joseph Stalin. He would fit perfectly in today's GOP.

Dear, it was the liberals who spied for Stalin, it is BO who had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders

How on earth can conservatives be authoritarian when stand for extreme anti authoritarian government while liberals just took over 20% of economy-health care . See why we are positive liberals are very very slow?? What other conclusion is possible??

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians[/QUOTE]

 

[code1211]

SHOW ME where in the Constitution it mentions free markets, capitalism, an invisible hand, or deregulation?

I will be waiting................

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

I don't know if you're playing stupid or not playing...

Anything, A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G, not specifically reserved to the Feds by the Constitution is given to the states or to the people.

The Constitution is a document of limitation. It limits the Federal Government. It grants to the Federal Government certain defined powers and these are enumerated. Ergo, the Enumerated Powers. If any power is not reserved to Feds, it is not. Period.

Absence of anything from the Constitution means that it is not a power of the Feds.

Are you failing to grasp this or just being obtuse?

NOW, in 2012, we have a whole group of dogmatic driven ideologues who absolutely KNOW the founder's true intent.

I will restate what I said in a previous post on this thread:

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

You are ascribing to these folks things they may have believed, but did not enact at the Federal Level.

The Constitution is what we are discussing and you are saying that the Founders imposed heavy regulation on Corporations.

In the post above you changed this to say that the Founders opposed swindling the common man. Heavy regulations occur before the swindle and the penalty after the swindle occur afterward. Obviously.

Can you produce a federal regulation from pre 1800 that demonstrates your claim? There is nothing in the Consstitution so that assertion is empty.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm just wondering how it exists in complete secrecy.

 

[code1211]

Let's hop into the time machine and go back to 2009

Et cetera. I mostly agree with what you're saying in this post, but would like to point out that what you're saying is 1) the government should have made stimulus available faster, and 2) it should also have targeted the money better so as to boost demand more rather than providing a payoff for campaign donors. I might quibble with your specific ideas, but this general point is undeniable.

I agree. The stimulus was very poorly handled. It was also too small. In saying what I did above, I was defending the general principle, definitely not President Obama's application of it, which like so much of what he's done fell far short of what he promised and should have delivered.

Thank you.

 

[code1211]

The reality is closer to what Justice Hughes said, "The Constitution is what the Court say it is."

of course treasonous liberals say that because they hate the freedom the Constitution embodies. This is why they spied for Stalin

The biggest believer in social Darwinism in the 20th century was Joseph Stalin. He would fit perfectly in today's GOP.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Conservatives include a wide stripe of people, but with regard to a form of government, they are generally committed to the Constitution as a base and therefore are also committed to a diffused arrangement of authority pressing it to the lowest levels away from Washington as will suffice to accomplish the job at hand.

As such, your quotation is simply wrong in today's parlence.

 

[Bfgrn]

I don't know if you're playing stupid or not playing...

Anything, A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G, not specifically reserved to the Feds by the Constitution is given to the states or to the people.

The Constitution is a document of limitation. It limits the Federal Government. It grants to the Federal Government certain defined powers and these are enumerated. Ergo, the Enumerated Powers. If any power is not reserved to Feds, it is not. Period.

Absence of anything from the Constitution means that it is not a power of the Feds.

Are you failing to grasp this or just being obtuse?

NOW, in 2012, we have a whole group of dogmatic driven ideologues who absolutely KNOW the founder's true intent.

I will restate what I said in a previous post on this thread:

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

You are ascribing to these folks things they may have believed, but did not enact at the Federal Level.

The Constitution is what we are discussing and you are saying that the Founders imposed heavy regulation on Corporations.

In the post above you changed this to say that the Founders opposed swindling the common man. Heavy regulations occur before the swindle and the penalty after the swindle occur afterward. Obviously.

Can you produce a federal regulation from pre 1800 that demonstrates your claim? There is nothing in the Consstitution so that assertion is empty.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm just wondering how it exists in complete secrecy.

What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations

To say that the founding fathers supported corporations is very absurd. Its quite the opposite in fact. Corporations like the East India Trading Company were despised by the founders and they were just one reason why they chose to revolt against England. Corporations represented the moneyed interests much like they do today and they often wielded political power, sometimes to the point of governing a colony all by themselves like the Massachusetts Bay Company did.

But there is more evidence that the Revolutionary generation despised corporations. The East India Company was the largest corporation of its day and its dominance of trade angered the colonists so much, that they dumped the tea products it had on a ship into Boston Harbor which today is universally known as the Boston Tea Party. At the time, in Britain, large corporations funded elections generously and its stock was owned by nearly everyone in parliament. The founding fathers did not think much of these corporations that had great wealth and great influence in government. And that is precisely why they put restrictions upon them after the government was organized under the Constitution.

After the nation’s founding, corporations were granted charters by the state as they are today. Unlike today, however, corporations were only permitted to exist 20 or 30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense. When you think about it, the regulations imposed on corporations in the early days of America were far harsher than they are now. That is hardly proof that the founders supported corporations. In fact its quite the opposite. The corporate entity was so restrictive that many of America’s corporate giants set up their entities to avoid the corporate restrictions. For example, Andrew Carnegie set up his steel company as a limited partnership and John D. Rockefeller set up his Standard Oil company as a trust which would later be rightfully busted up into smaller companies by Theodore Roosevelt.

For those who need more evidence, how about statements from the founders themselves. As we all know, big banks are also considered corporations and here is what Thomas Jefferson thought about them. In an 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin, Jefferson said,

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Thomas Jefferson also said this in 1816,

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

Jefferson wasn’t the only founding father to make statements about corporations. John Adams also had an opinion.

“Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.”

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

To say that the founding fathers supported corporations is very absurd. ”

The subject is idiotic since there were no corporations to speak of. 95% were independent farmers or self employed, plus the corporations that did exist in the public mind were really huge government monopolies.

Even more absurd is being against modern corporations since we all work for them and get the goods and services that sustain our lives from them. Being against them is like being against the wind. Only liberals could be so stupid. what other conclusion is possible?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

this quote shows perfectly that Jefferson's corporations are opposite of modern corporations. The idea that 25 modern million corporations, all competing with each other, could somehow get organized through a secret society ( maybe the Girl Scout is their front organization?) and challenge our government is so perfectly stupid as to be perfectly liberal.

 

[code1211]

NOW, in 2012, we have a whole group of dogmatic driven ideologues who absolutely KNOW the founder's true intent.

I will restate what I said in a previous post on this thread:

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

You are ascribing to these folks things they may have believed, but did not enact at the Federal Level.

The Constitution is what we are discussing and you are saying that the Founders imposed heavy regulation on Corporations.

In the post above you changed this to say that the Founders opposed swindling the common man. Heavy regulations occur before the swindle and the penalty after the swindle occur afterward. Obviously.

Can you produce a federal regulation from pre 1800 that demonstrates your claim? There is nothing in the Consstitution so that assertion is empty.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm just wondering how it exists in complete secrecy.

What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations

To say that the founding fathers supported corporations is very absurd. Its quite the opposite in fact. Corporations like the East India Trading Company were despised by the founders and they were just one reason why they chose to revolt against England. Corporations represented the moneyed interests much like they do today and they often wielded political power, sometimes to the point of governing a colony all by themselves like the Massachusetts Bay Company did.

But there is more evidence that the Revolutionary generation despised corporations. The East India Company was the largest corporation of its day and its dominance of trade angered the colonists so much, that they dumped the tea products it had on a ship into Boston Harbor which today is universally known as the Boston Tea Party. At the time, in Britain, large corporations funded elections generously and its stock was owned by nearly everyone in parliament. The founding fathers did not think much of these corporations that had great wealth and great influence in government. And that is precisely why they put restrictions upon them after the government was organized under the Constitution.

After the nation’s founding, corporations were granted charters by the state as they are today. Unlike today, however, corporations were only permitted to exist 20 or 30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense. When you think about it, the regulations imposed on corporations in the early days of America were far harsher than they are now. That is hardly proof that the founders supported corporations. In fact its quite the opposite. The corporate entity was so restrictive that many of America’s corporate giants set up their entities to avoid the corporate restrictions. For example, Andrew Carnegie set up his steel company as a limited partnership and John D. Rockefeller set up his Standard Oil company as a trust which would later be rightfully busted up into smaller companies by Theodore Roosevelt.

For those who need more evidence, how about statements from the founders themselves. As we all know, big banks are also considered corporations and here is what Thomas Jefferson thought about them. In an 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin, Jefferson said,

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Thomas Jefferson also said this in 1816,

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

Jefferson wasn’t the only founding father to make statements about corporations. John Adams also had an opinion.

“Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.”

Blah, Blah, Blah...

Show me the section in the Constitution in which they outlawed Corporations.


As far as this passage goes:

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Our children don't need banks and corporations to deprive them of their wealth. The Big 0 has pretty taken care of that with his ran a way spending.

Did you find any quotes from Jefferson regarding racking up 5 Trillion dollars of debt in three years?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Between military service and working in war industries, we achieved full employment at good wages.

of course thats perfectly idiotic. A artificial liberal bubble will burst just like the housing bubble did and cause a recession or depression.

What a fool a liberal must be to think that building planes and tanks and dumping them into the sea will solve our problems. It is not even childlike.

 

[Dragon]

Show me the section in the Constitution in which they outlawed Corporations.

First, show us where anyone claims that it does. Failing that, show where anyone's argument depends on it having done so.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Did you find any quotes from Jefferson regarding racking up 5 Trillion dollars of debt in three years?

Jefferson wrote his letter to long time friend John Taylor,dated NOv.26, 1798, which was in fact advocating that such an amendment be added to the Constitution.Thomas Jefferson who, just two years after the Constitution had been in effect, argued for a Constitutional amendment: “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an article, taking from the Federal government the power of borrowing.”

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819

The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.


When Jefferson assumed the Presidency, the crisis in France had passed. He slashed Army and Navy expenditures, cut the budget, eliminated the tax on whiskey so unpopular in the West, yet reduced the national debt by a third. He also sent a naval squadron to fight the Barbary pirates, who were harassing American commerce in the Mediterranean

 

[code1211]

Show me the section in the Constitution in which they outlawed Corporations.

First, show us where anyone claims that it does. Failing that, show where anyone's argument depends on it having done so.

Bfgrn says exactly this in post #292.

That he supports it by saying that corporations are regulated at the State level does little to support his claim as it applies to the federal Charter.

Such is life.

He said that Corporations were heavily regulated by the Founders, but they were obviously not regulated at the Federal Level.

By understating the lack of connection between the Federal level regulation, he disingenuously implies that the Founders wanted to regulate corporations at the Federal Level. It is obvious that they did not.

Then, as now, Corporations are incorporated at the State level. The Founders believed that the States should have the stronger regulatory influence over people and what they do. That is why the Constitution is so limiting in its language and intent.

I feel that they shared my opinion that the most beautiful phrase in the English language is, "Congress shall make no law."