Message to Libertarians and others: The founding fathers believed in regulation

[The T]

Message to Libertarians and others: The founding fathers believed in regulation

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Madison as well as Hamilton believed the nation needed a strong and more powerful central government than had previously existed. Federalist papers?

So why are people who are hostile to regulation like the Federalist Society always claiming to be the heirs of the traditions and ideals of Madison and Hamilton as well as claiming them as their inspiration and role models?

I understand the clueless, ill-educated here and elsewhere on the web making such ridiculous and absurd errors, but...

Like it's news here, you are a total dunce. "Well regulated" does not mean larded over with government regulations.
/Fail.

Indeed. It was the purpose of Government in the eyes of the Founders to preserve and protect Liberty so hard fought for, FOR the people...and it was up to the elected to do just that...NOT run our lives.


The OP is full of shit. Another LIBTARD *FAIL* thread...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Message to Dante

They also believed in monopolies. You can't argue for the regulation they believed in unless you also argue for the markets they believed in.

 

[The T]

Message to Dante

They also believed in monopolies. You can't argue for the regulation they believed in unless you also argue for the markets they believed in.

Completely free market that goes along with Liberty...and that's how we got here. It's been perverted in the last 100 years with the advent of the Progressives (Wilson)...

 

[Harry Dresden]

The Republicans who fought against slavery were Liberals.

more like Republicans who knew the difference between right and wrong....

Liberals. Party affiliation was not akin to ideology

tell that to Sallow and Rightwinger......back then i agree with you....

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Dayum..Rabbi. It's like you've never read the whole thing!

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

It's a little more like you don't comprehend basic reading skills.

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

1- The common defense and general welfare of the United states. Meaning, the nation in dealing with world wide problems not meaning we need to provide welfare to everyone within the country. That job would fall to the states if they needed to do that.

2- To borrow money doesn't mean to borrow until you bankrupt the nation. I'm pretty sure they never even considered that we would have a government so insanely stupid as to keep running the debt to insane levels.

3- To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. Your highlight says it all. The commerce clause was never intending to regulate anything outside of trade with foreign Nations, or within the states dealing with each other or the Indian Tribes in which at the time were pretty much a foreign country.

All they were looking to do was make sure one state couldn't sell to another at one price and charge another double that price. Had absolutely nothing to do with what the market was for the merchant within that state, or what the farmer could grow or could not grow. It had nothing to do with subsidizing one crop or product over another. It was to make sure what I sell from here to Texas is the same price that I would sell to New York. It was to eliminate price gouging a state because you had them over the barrel in a bad time for them.

 

[The Rabbi]

[MENTION=30190]M.D. Rawlings[/MENTION] [MENTION=45418]Spiderman[/MENTION]

Indeed. It did not mean regulated by the federal government at all.

A national government in charge of the militia would presuppose national regulation. Of course the states have a role.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

READ THE FRIGGIN CONSTITUTION!

READ THE FRIGGIN CONSTITUTION!

More importantly, read is case law; the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

Those on the right won’t like it or agree with it – but conservatives shouldn’t make the mistake of being ignorant of it.

Wrong. The Constitution is dead, dead, dead.

 

[American4Americ]

FYI to OP, most of Alexander Hamilton, and the ideas of the rest of the monarchists were shot down by true liberty-lovers.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION]

Message to Dante

They also believed in monopolies. You can't argue for the regulation they believed in unless you also argue for the markets they believed in.

certain monopolies are cool. monopolies are regulated

the markets today do not resemble the markets of hundreds of years ago and only a fool would speak as you do

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Madison abandoned the Federalist Party to ally with the Republicans. He did not approve of the monarchical tendencies of Washington, Hamilton, and Adams or their belief in implied powers and a central bank. Jefferson's administration reduced the size of the federal government considerably.

Hamilton was an arrogant, ambitious Secretary of State who thought that America should have been a fiscal-military state with a complex financial network, a state that could rival any of the European powers. European-style power is exactly the kind of authority the Americans had divested themselves of a dozen years earlier.

And a majority of the Philadelphia Convention delegates believed the central government should be stronger. That's why we have a Constitution rather than just a revised Articles.

true

the rest of your post is nothing but a rant stuffed with opinion and bullshit

Good one. Very substantive.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Message to Dante

They also believed in monopolies. You can't argue for the regulation they believed in unless you also argue for the markets they believed in.

Completely free market that goes along with Liberty...and that's how we got here. It's been perverted in the last 100 years with the advent of the Progressives (Wilson)...

take a few history classes

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

more like Republicans who knew the difference between right and wrong....

Liberals. Party affiliation was not akin to ideology

tell that to Sallow and Rightwinger......back then i agree with you....

yet ideology today dictates news sources and party affiliation today

Conservative plan spelled out in their own words in late 1970s

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

FYI to OP, most of Alexander Hamilton, and the ideas of the rest of the monarchists were shot down by true liberty-lovers.

Monarchists? Like George Washington who backed Hamilton?

 

[norwegen]

FYI to OP, most of Alexander Hamilton, and the ideas of the rest of the monarchists were shot down by true liberty-lovers.

Monarchists? Like George Washington who backed Hamilton?

Washington may not have been a Federalist on paper, but certainly allied with them.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

These people believe in little to no regulations so big business can do as they please. They probably hate every advancement in human rights of the past 200 years.

The way you hate black people?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Message to Libertarians and others: The founding fathers believed in regulation

What libertarian has said there shouldn't be any regulation, Dainty?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

FYI to OP, most of Alexander Hamilton, and the ideas of the rest of the monarchists were shot down by true liberty-lovers.

Monarchists? Like George Washington who backed Hamilton?

Washington may not have been a Federalist on paper, but certainly allied with them.

Yes and if it wasn't for the people like Hamilton we would have never been ready for the industrial revolution. If little Tommie Jefferson had his way we would have been a backwards agricultural utopia like Russia

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Message to Libertarians and others: The founding fathers believed in regulation

What libertarian has said there shouldn't be any regulation, Dainty?

The ones that fight all regulation. Wake up

 

[norwegen]

Monarchists? Like George Washington who backed Hamilton?

Washington may not have been a Federalist on paper, but certainly allied with them.

Yes and if it wasn't for the people like Hamilton we would have never been ready for the industrial revolution. If little Tommie Jefferson had his way we would have been a backwards agricultural utopia like Russia

Jefferson did have his way. He undid much of what the Federalists did. After his administration, the only exposure most Americans had to the federal government was mail delivery. The succeeding Republican administrations carried that mantle. In the end, Hamilton proved ineffective.

Take a few history classes.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Message to Libertarians and others: The founding fathers believed in regulation

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Madison as well as Hamilton believed the nation needed a strong and more powerful central government than had previously existed. Federalist papers?

So why are people who are hostile to regulation like the Federalist Society always claiming to be the heirs of the traditions and ideals of Madison and Hamilton as well as claiming them as their inspiration and role models?

I understand the clueless, ill-educated here and elsewhere on the web making such ridiculous and absurd errors, but...

Unfortunately for you, regulated was an all to common term used in the 1700s, as it generally referred to something being in proper order, calibrated, and functioning correctly. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only NOT the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so by the Founders. It helps to first look at how the term was properly used during the time to which it was written.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Washington may not have been a Federalist on paper, but certainly allied with them.

Yes and if it wasn't for the people like Hamilton we would have never been ready for the industrial revolution. If little Tommie Jefferson had his way we would have been a backwards agricultural utopia like Russia

Jefferson did have his way. He undid much of what the Federalists did. After his administration, the only exposure most Americans had to the federal government was mail delivery. The succeeding Republican administrations carried that mantle. In the end, Hamilton proved ineffective.

Take a few history classes.

Jefferson was a pragmatist and hypocrite. He used a Hamiltonian tool to purchase Louie and grow America. Every time we got into trouble a Hamiltonian solution got us out of it ( History of central banking in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )